“The court has no excuse for the lack of urgency on such a crucial issue.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule Monday on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

But the high court’s delay in handing down its decision has already “helped the former president in his effort to avoid trial before the November 5 election,” Reutersnoted Sunday, leading to accusations that the court’s right-wing supermajority has essentially intervened in the presidential contest on Trump’s behalf.

It’s been more than four months since the court agreed to take up the case, and more than two months since oral arguments. Trump nominated three of the justices who currently sit on the Supreme Court.

“By not issuing a decision before the debate, the MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have in effect granted Donald Trump the immunity from trial he seeks—at least through the election,” attorney Norm Eisen and Mike Podhorzer of the Defend Democracy Project said in a statement after yet another week passed without a decision in the closely watched case.

“By agreeing to take up the presidential immunity case at all, and then piling on delays, MAGA justices on the court, like the deeply conflicted Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, have used this case to interfere in the course of the 2024 presidential election,” Eisen and Podhorzer continued. “By stalling so long that a trial is now unlikely, the justices have already succeeded in effectively giving Trump immunity regardless of the content of their ruling.”

The immunity decision is one of four expected on Monday, with the rulings set to be released beginning at around 10:00 am ET.

“It’s long overdue and frankly outrageous that the Supreme Court has dragged their feet and delayed Trump’s January 6th trial for months,” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wrote on social media. “The court has no excuse for the lack of urgency on such a crucial issue.”

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the election subversion charges against Trump last year, has urged the Supreme Court to reject the former president’s sweeping claim that he should be “absolutely immune from prosecution” for actions he took as president.

“The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former president, and all presidents from the founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts,” Smith wrote in a filing to the Supreme Court in April.

NBC Newsreported ahead of Monday’s ruling that “based on the oral arguments, it appeared likely the court would conclude that there could be some conduct alleged in the indictment that is subject to immunity.”

“The justices could set a new test for determining what official acts receive immunity and then send it back to lower courts to determine how that affects Trump’s indictment,” the outlet added.

In an amicus brief, a group of constitutional law experts rejected the notion that Trump should enjoy immunity from prosecution for official acts, writing that the former president’s claims “reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court’s precedent.”

“Trump’s argument that former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office finds no support in the Constitution’s text and history,” the experts wrote.

Common Dream’s work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

  court, trump.immunity