Supreme Court grants Trump partial immunity in Jan. 6 case

A divided Supreme Court Monday handed former President Trump a major legal victory by deciding that presidents enjoy significant criminal immunity, derailing a trial for his role in the Jan. 6 attack.

Even as it rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity, the conservative top court ruled that presidents may not be criminally charged for “official acts” while serving in the White House,

The 6-3 ruling sends the case back to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan for pre-trial proceedings and almost certainly prevents Trump from facing trial before the November election.

“The nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity,” Justice John Roberts rote.

Trump hopes to beat President Biden and win back the White House, when he would likely order the case dismissed, even though presidents are supposed to respect the independence of federal prosecutors.

Trump was indicted last year in what Special Counsel Jack Smith calls a sweeping plot to overturn his loss to President Biden in the 2020 election, an effort that culminated with the Jan. 6 attack.

District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan set a trial date in March, saying the nation deserved a resolution before picking the next president. But she was forced scrapped that plan and put all proceedings on hold when Trump appealed her ruling that he does not enjoy immunity for the alleged crimes.

Trump appealed her decision and the Supreme Court has taken its time deciding the case, rejecting Smith’s December plea that they hear it immediately.

An appeals court panel comprehensively rejected Trump’s claim but the Supreme Court agreed to hear a new round of oral arguments in late April.

Several conservative justices appeared to be open to Trump’s claims of immunity, although observers say it’s a fool’s errand to read too much into their questions at such sessions.

Liberal justices including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that granting presidential immunity would be akin to allowing a rogue president to turn the White House into the “seat of criminality.”

Chutkan has said she would give Trump’s defense ample time to prepare for the trial, meaning the earliest a trial could start would be late September, just a few weeks before Election Day.

J. Michael Luttig, a conservative retired federal judge, urged Smith to bring the case to trial as quickly as possible, even at the height of a campaign in which Trump would be vying for the presidency.

“I would urge Jack Smith … to bring the case on for trial even in September or October in the name of and for the sake of American democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law,” Luttig told MSNBC.

Trump hopes to win back the White House in November. He could presumably engineer a dismissal of the case if he returns to power.

The immunity appeal is only one prong in Trump’s mostly successful effort to delay accountability for his alleged crimes.

Trump has successfully delayed his Georgia state racketeering and election interference case by raising allegations of an improper romantic affair between Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her top lieutenant.

A Georgia appeals court has agreed to hear Trump’s appeal of Judge Scott McAfee’s ruling that Willis can remain on the case, meaning the trial likely wouldn’t start till sometime in 2025 if at all.

Meanwhile, federal District Court Judge Aileen Cannon has slow-walked his trial in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, which many pundits say is the most clear-cut case against him.

Cannon has yet to set a trial date and has allowed the case to become bogged down in time-consuming pre-trial proceedings.

Trump was convicted of 34 felonies in the Manhattan hush money case tied to payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels. He is awaiting a July 11 sentencing date by Judge Juan Merchan.