politico archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/PS7WH

see also: https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-politics/ap-supreme-court-moving-quickly-will-decide-if-trump-can-be-prosecuted-in-election-interference-case/ | thehill archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/W6bFe

Excerpts (politico):

In Wednesday’s order, the Supreme Court granted Trump’s emergency request to maintain that pause while the justices hear Trump’s immunity appeal.

But the court’s decision to keep the pretrial proceedings frozen is a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s effort to bring Trump to trial this year. Smith has charged Trump with four felonies stemming from his bid to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

If they deny the immunity bid by the end of their term in June, it may still be possible for the trial judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, to schedule a trial to begin in late summer or fall.

The timing of the justices’ eventual ruling could be critical since Chutkan has vowed to give Trump roughly three additional months to prepare for trial if the case is returned to her courtroom.

That hypothetical schedule would guarantee that much of Trump’s general election calendar is consumed by his mandatory presence in the courtroom, perhaps overlapping with the Republican National Convention or even Election Day itself.

Chutkan had originally intended to begin the election-subversion trial on March 4, but she nixed that start date due to the delays caused by Trump’s immunity claim. The trial, if it happens, is expected to last several months.

Excerpts (thehill):

That timetable is much faster than usual, but assuming the justices deny Trump’s immunity bid, it’s not clear whether a trial can be scheduled and concluded before the November election. Early voting in some states will begin in September.

In the end, the timing of a possible trial could come down to how quickly the justices rule. They have shown they can act fast, issuing a decision in the Watergate tapes case in 1974 just 16 days after hearing arguments. The decision in Bush v. Gore came the day after arguments in December 2000.

By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.

Though their Supreme Court filing did not explicitly mention the upcoming November election or Trump’s status as the Republican primary front-runner, prosecutors described the case as having “unique national importance” and said that “delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict.”