Court won’t hear Trump immunity dispute now

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from Special Counsel Jack Smith to decide, without waiting for a federal appeals court to weigh in, whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Smith had asked the justices to act quickly to resolve the dispute over Trump’s immunity during the 2023-24 term, but the justices turned him down, in a brief unsigned order issued on Friday afternoon.

There were no dissents recorded from the decision not to hear the case at this time, nor did the justices provide any explanation for their decision.

SCOTUS NEWS

Smith urges “immediate review” of Trump’s immunity claims

Special Counsel Jack Smith rejected as “misguided” the suggestion by lawyers for former President Donald Trump that the Supreme Court should wait to decide whether Trump can be tried on charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Emphasizing that the charges against Trump “are of the utmost gravity,” Smith contended that the “public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this Court.”

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Friday, December 22

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

• Whether in 2000 or 2024, There’s No Upside for Supreme Court in Deciding Elections (Jess Bravin, The Wall Street Journal)
• The Supreme Court Should at a Minimum Ask Jack Smith to Brief the Question of the Constitutionality of his Appointment (Steven Calabresi, The Volokh Conspiracy)
• New Trump Cases Shadowed by Rocky Relationship with Supreme Court (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• Trump seeks to delay E. Jean Carroll civil trial to consider options, including potential Supreme Court review (Kara Scannell, CNN)
• Conservative Fifth Circuit’s Rulings Test Supreme Court (Jacqueline Thomsen, Bloomberg Law)

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, December 20

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Will the U.S. Supreme Court Keep Trump Off the Ballot? Some Initial Thoughts (Rick Hasen, Election Law Blog)
• Sandra Day O’Connor, cowgirl and intellectual, would not be fenced in (Sally Jenkins, Washington Post)
• Colorado Grinches Ruin the Supreme Court’s Christmas (Dan McLaughlin, National Review)
• Florida man pleads guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice (Zoe Richards, NBC News)
• Trump Has Always Wanted to Be King. The Supreme Court Should Rid Him of that Delusion (Kate Shaw, The New York Times)

IN MEMORIAM

A Washington send-off for Sandra Day O’Connor

The late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was celebrated at a memorial service Tuesday as an American pioneer whose mantra when facing legal decisions and life challenges was “get it done.”

“Sandra Day O’Connor, the daughter of the American west, was a pioneer in her own right, breaking down the barriers in the political world and the nation’s conscience,” President Joe Biden said during a two-hour service at Washington National Cathedral. “To her, the Supreme Court was the bedrock, the bedrock of America. It was the vital line of defense, devoted not to pursue power for power’s sake but to make real … the American promise that holds that we are all created equal and deserve to be treated equally throughout our lives.”