The U.S. Supreme Court has set April 25 as the date it will hear Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity from prosecution on charges related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss - the last day of oral arguments of its current term.

The court released its updated argument calendar a week after it agreed to take up the case and gave the former president a boost by putting on hold the criminal prosecution being pursued by Special Counsel Jack Smith. It previously had disclosed which week it would hear the matter but had not given the precise date.

The justices will review a lower court’s rejection of Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution because he was president when he took actions aimed at reversing President Joe Biden’s election victory over him.

    • FenrirIII
      link
      fedilink
      159 months ago

      No they aren’t. They were asked to take this up a long time ago and didn’t. Then, when shit started looking bad for Trump, they suddenly reverse course and delay his trial.

      • @JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        109 months ago

        You are correct. Mr. Smith’s team requested that the SCOTUS review this months ago. Long before it was brought to them by Trump’s team, as a way to expedite the process, and stop the “play out the clock” approach they take.

    • @JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      119 months ago

      There’s zero tradition for a former president being indicted numerous times for almost a hundred crimes. There’s no measuring stick for this.

    • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      -3
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      They didn’t have to move at all, though. That’s the thing, they’re doing this voluntarily, just like with their ruling on Trump being on the ballots because they claim Congress has to hold a vote every time they want to enforce a law that has existed for 150 years. They chose to rule on that, they didn’t have to.

      • @shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        09 months ago

        So you don’t want a SCOTUS ruling on this? You would rather leave it somewhat ambiguous? I want a solid ruling.

        • @JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          59 months ago

          Most times, precedent is set by what the court decides NOT to review. When they say nothing, they are saying “the lower court has it right”. This is standard practice.

        • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Other courts should be handling this, the SCOTUS ruling delays proceedings or otherwise makes him immune to crime, both bad outcomes.