By
Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. As you may have heard, the Supreme Court has decided to weigh in on Donald Trump’s far-fetched immunity claim, putting the federal election interference trial in doubt. That was the biggest but not the only action in Trump legal world this week.
Hitting that big news first, the Supreme Court could have simply sent Trump’s Jan. 6-related case back for trial but instead chose to get involved. The justices set a somewhat expedited schedule, with a hearing the week of April 22. We don’t know when the decision will come, but the court usually issues the term’s final rulings by July. That doesn’t leave much time for a lengthy trial before the presidential election. So even if the justices reject Trump’s immunity bid, they could effectively immunize him in the process. If he wins that election, the case is good as gone.
Speaking of the 2024 election, the justices still haven’t ruled on Trump’s eligibility to run in it. Meanwhile this week, a judge in a third state, Illinois, joined Colorado and Maine in saying he can’t be on the ballot. Like the other state actions, that one is on hold ahead of the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in Trump v. Anderson, so the former president is staying on the ballot for now. At the high court hearing last month, the justices sounded uncomfortable with keeping him off the ballot, despite the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban. But is the reason we don’t have a ruling yet that they’re having trouble laundering that discomfort into a coherent legal opinion?
Down in Florida, ahead of a crucial hearing with Judge Aileen Cannon, special counsel Jack Smith asked for a July trial date, while Trump insisted he shouldn’t be tried at all while he’s campaigning. But if he must stand trial like a normal person would have to, then Trump and his co-defendants want the trial to start in the late summer, they said in a court filing. As I explain here, that sets up a scenario in which neither that case nor the federal election interference case sees trial before the election — or, possibly, ever. Cannon didn’t set a date at Friday’s hearing, but she did express skepticism about Smith’s proposal.
Meanwhile in Georgia, another big Trump hearing took place Friday, in the drama over Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ potential disqualification. Judge Scott McAfee heard legal arguments from the parties, questioning both sides about their positions and the applicable legal standard for kicking Willis and her office off the case. At the hearing’s conclusion, the judge said he has several legal and factual issues to sort through and hopes to have an answer within the next two weeks.
In other Georgia news, Trump co-defendant Mark Meadows lost his latest effort to move his charges in that state case to federal court. The former White House chief of staff may turn next to the Supreme Court, which raises the question: Do the justices want to make their already Trumpy docket even Trumpier?
With the federal and Georgia cases’ fates unclear, Trump’s New York criminal trial is still slated to be his first (and the first of any former U.S. president). Ahead of it, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg wants a gag order for the defendant, citing the leading GOP presidential candidate’s “long history of making public and inflammatory remarks about the participants in various judicial proceedings against him, including jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and court staff.” We’ll be diving more into that so-called hush money case as jury selection approaches later this month.
In other Supreme Court news, the justices wrapped up their February argument sitting with important hearings over social media and firearms regulation. They’re set to take the bench next March 18, for a two-week session featuring a crucial March 26 hearing in the long-running dispute over abortion pill access.
Have any questions or comments for me? I’d love to hear from you! Please email deadlinelegal@nbcuni.com for a chance to be featured in a future newsletter.