How Trump’s immunity case reached the Supreme Court: The full timeline

Washington – The Supreme Court is scheduled to meet Thursday to consider whether former President Donald Trump has the authority Comprehensive immunity He is immune from criminal prosecution for what he says are official actions he took while occupying the White House.

The outcome of the dispute, dubbed “Trump v. United States,” will have implications for the case brought against the former president in Washington, D.C. by special counsel Jack Smith, who is accused of participating in efforts to overturn Trump’s results. 2020 election. election

A verdict in Trump’s favor would end the prosecution. But if Smith wins and Trump’s immunity claim is rejected, the case, which has been stalled for months, will resume, though it’s unclear how quickly the case will go to trial.

A victory for the special counsel would significantly increase Trump’s 2024 election because he could order the Justice Department to drop the case if he is re-elected to the White House.

Trump’s immunity claim dates back to last fall, when his lawyers first raised the issue. A Supreme Court ruling is expected by the end of June. Here’s how the case played out before the judge:

2023

August 1: Trump is to accuse Four counts are pending in federal court in Washington. Prosecutors accused him and others of orchestrating an elaborate scheme to ensure he stayed in power after losing the 2020 presidential election.

3rd August: Trump pleaded not guilty to four counts before a federal magistrate judge.

October 5: Trump’s lawyer Make a movement Charges against him were dismissed on the grounds of presidential immunity. In the 52-page document, they argue that Trump is entitled to absolute immunity, in part to ensure that the president can be sued in the future by political opponents “without hesitation or fear” for decisions they don’t like.

Defense attorneys argued that the conduct alleged in the indictment was “core” to Trump’s official duties as president.

19 October: Prosecutors from Smith’s team opposed Trump’s dismissal of the charges on immunity grounds. In a 54-page filing, they told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that neither the Constitution nor Supreme Court precedent supports the blanket immunity they argue for.

They believe that the former president can be investigated, tried, tried and punished if convicted for his actions while in office. They also disputed Trump’s characterization of his actions as undermining the presidential transfer of power, writing that he took these actions in his capacity as a candidate for elective office.

The special counsel wrote that Trump “allegedly engaged in fraudulent or corrupt conduct to protect his personal interests as a presidential candidate, rather than fulfilling his duties as president under the Constitution.”

December 1: US District Judge Tanya Chutkan Reject Trump’s request By dismissing the charge based on presidential immunity, the Constitution does not support his argument that he is entitled to absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts.

“Regardless of the immunity a sitting president enjoys, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not come with a lifetime ‘get out of jail’ pass,” Chatkan wrote in the decision “Federal Criminal Justice Liability for Former Presidents.” does not enjoy any special conditions.”

He continued that Trump could face a federal investigation, prosecution, trial, conviction and sentence for any criminal conduct while in office.

December 7: Trump appealed Chutkan’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asking it to stay the proceedings pending review by the appeals court.

December 11: Smith Supreme Court Inquiry Bypasses the D.C. Circuit to quickly decide whether Trump can be criminally charged for alleged illegal conduct while in the White House.

The special counsel told the justices that it was “urgent” for the Supreme Court to resolve Trump’s immunity claims and that his trial would proceed “as expeditiously as possible” if they were rejected.

Smith asked the high court to intervene in the case before the D.C. Circuit heard arguments and rules on whether Trump is entitled to blanket immunity.

December 13: take a sip Approve Trump’s request It suspended proceedings in the case but said a limited gag order and an order governing the use of “sensitive” information in the case remained in effect.

December 22: Supreme Court Reject Smith’s bid Speed ​​up the immunity case and bypass the D.C. Circuit to take the dispute to the Court of Appeals.

2024

January 9: Panel of three judges of the DC circuit Listen to the argument Whether Trump is free of criminal charges. The judges on the case are Karen Lecraft Henderson, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan.

Henderson was appointed to the DC Circuit by President George HW Bush. Child and Pawn were appointed by President Biden.

During arguments, the justices questioned the extent of the broad immunity Trump has claimed, including whether a president who orders the military to kill a political opponent should be immune from prosecution.

February 6: A three-person jury Consistency rules Trump does not enjoy broad immunity from prosecution.

“For purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump has become a Trump citizen and has all the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the judge said in the ruling, “except for any executive immunity that might have protected him during his tenure.” As president, Quan will no longer protect him from this case.”

The justices ruled that Trump “is not entitled to presidential immunity for alleged official conduct,” writing that they “cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that the president has unlimited power to commit crimes that would offset the most basic checks and balances on executive power.” – Recognition and implementation of election results.

“It would be an interesting paradox if the President alone were given the constitutional duty to ‘see that the laws are faithfully executed,’ and yet he was the only officer able to violate those laws with impunity,” the panel wrote.

The justices asked the Supreme Court to delay their ruling on Trump until February 12.

February 12: trump card Seek emergency relief From the Supreme Court, the justices were asked to stay the D.C. Circuit’s ruling.

Lawyers for the former president wrote in a filing that without immunity from criminal charges, “we know the presidency would cease to exist.”

They accused the special counsel of trying to force Trump to face a lengthy criminal trial that would take him off the campaign trail at the height of the presidential campaign.

14 February: Smith Appeal to the Supreme Court denying Trump’s request for emergency relief and allowing the D.C. Circuit’s ruling to stand. Doing so will clear the way for the 2020 election case to be heard.

But the special counsel told the judge they should expedite the case if they believe Trump’s immunity claim merits review. He suggested that the court set a schedule that would allow for oral arguments in March and opinions soon after.

Smith wrote that if Trump were to be granted absolute immunity, it would undermine democracy and the rule of law, while ignoring historically held understandings of presidential accountability. “

February 28: Supreme Court Agree with the decision Whether Trump is entitled to presidential immunity from prosecution for alleged acts while in office.

The unsigned order specifies the question the justices will consider: “Whether and to what extent a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged official conduct while in office.”

It also sets the stage for the week of April 22nd The court said proceedings in the case will be suspended until a verdict, which is expected at the end of June.

March 19: in him Opening briefing Trump’s lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to overturn the D.C. Circuit’s ruling and free the former president from criminal charges.

“From 1789 to 2023, no president, past or present, has faced criminal charges for his official actions and with good reason,” Trump’s lawyers told the court, “if any president faces criminal charges for his official actions after leaving office.” Without justice the President will be unable to discharge his duties and the office of the Presidency itself will be unable to maintain its vital independence.”

They argued that allowing a former president to face criminal charges would affect future government officials.

“Once our nation crosses the Rubicon,” Sauer wrote, “every future president will face de facto blackmail and extortion while in office and be held accountable for his most sensitive and controversial decisions after leaving office.” The result of this dark vision will be a weak and hollow presidency that will be destructive to the entire American political system.”

April 8: Special Adviser Submit his profile The suit was filed in the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s alleged plan to subvert the presidential handover fell outside the scope of his duties.

“The presidential powers at issue in this case do not entitle the President to claim immunity from the usual federal criminal sanctions supporting these charges: fraud against the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding, and disenfranchisement,” Smith and his team wrote. “The constitutional duty of the President to see that the laws are faithfully executed does not give him a general right to violate them.”

The special counsel and his assistant prosecutors told the judge that Trump’s alleged efforts to stay in power after the 2020 election “undermined key constitutional provisions that protect democracy.”

They also wrote that even if the Supreme Court were to hold that immunity extends to the former president’s “official acts,” Trump could still be sued because the charges against him were “a private scheme with a private actor to achieve a private objective: petitioners’ efforts.” involved Staying in power through fraud. “

25 April: The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Trump v. United States. D. John Sauer will represent Trump and Michael Dribben will appear for the special counsel.