In the coming days, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on three separate cases stemming directly from the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an unusual move of its kind.
Within days, perhaps hours, of each other, judges will decide whether Donald Trump enjoys immunity from prosecution for allegedly trying to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election he lost.
Members of the court will also decide whether Mr Trump’s supporters who stormed the Capitol can be prosecuted on charges of obstructing an official process.
The third case is related to Mr. Trump’s former adviser, Steve Bannon.
The latter has asked the Supreme Court to postpone the start of his prison sentence until the end of the appeal process. He was convicted on charges of violating an order to testify before the House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol.
From the perspective of Mr. Trump and his allies, the rulings could bolster their claims that the Justice Department has treated defendants in the Capitol riots unfairly. The riots resulted in more than 1,400 prosecutions, the conviction of over 200 people and more than 850 pleading guilty to criminal offences.
That has not stopped Mr. Trump and his allies from claiming that the Justice Department has treated the defendants in the Capitol riots unfairly. The court’s decision may give them more reason to contest the charges.
The court’s handling of the immunity issue has already drawn criticism, since the justices agreed to take up the case — especially in light of a unanimous federal appeals court ruling that rejected Mr. Trump’s request — and more recently over with the fact that they have not yet made a decision on the matter.
Even if the court grants some kind of limited immunity to the former president, or rejects his claims entirely, allowing his trial for election meddling to continue in Washington, the trial is not expected to end before the election, according to the law professor at University of Michigan, Leah Litman.
While the court has moved more quickly than usual in hearing the immunity issue, it has acted much more quickly in other cases involving presidential powers, including the Watergate tapes case. Nearly 50 years ago, the court ruled 8-0 in just 16 days after hearing arguments that Richard Nixon should turn over tapes of Oval Office conversations, rejecting his claim of executive privilege.
In March, it took the justices less than a month after hearing arguments to unanimously rule that the “insurrection clause” in the US Constitution established after the Civil War could not be used by the states to exclude Mr. Trump from the presidential race. VOA
