Is Trump immune from criminal charges as a former president? The nation awaits word from the Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (AP) — In the coming days, the Supreme Court will face a perfect storm largely of its own making: three decisions stemming directly from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The justices are expected to determine inside days, if not hours, of one another whether Donald Trump has immunity from criminal charges in connection along with his efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat and whether Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol could be held criminally accountable for obstructing an official proceeding.

The court may even determine whether former Trump adviser Steve Bannon can remain free while he appeals his conviction for contempt of Congress for refusing to subpoena the House committee that investigated the attack on the Capitol.

The cases are amongst greater than a dozen major disputes over abortion, homelessness, the power of federal regulators, the opioid epidemic and social media platforms that the justices have left to be resolved as they approach the traditional end of their terms.

Taken together, three cases involving the former president could inform the narrative about the court and its conservative majority, including three Trump-appointed justices and two other justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who rejected calls to recuse themselves from the Constitutional Court in January 6 cases as a consequence of questions on their impartiality.

For Trump and his allies, the results could provide further fuel for his or her claims that the Justice Department unfairly treated Capitol riot defendants. As a results of the riots, over 1,400 criminal cases were initiated, during which 200 people were convicted and over 850 confessed to committing the crime.

This didn’t dissuade Trump and his allies from maintaining that the Justice Department treated those charged in the Capitol riot unfairly. The results of the cases could give them more reason to sentence the prosecution.

The court’s handling of the immunity issue has already drawn criticism, each for the justices’ handling of the issue in any respect – especially given the unanimous ruling by a federal appeals court that rejected Trump’s request – and, more recently, for yet They didn’t make a decision.

Even if the court limits Trump’s immunity or rejects his claims altogether, allowing his election interference trial to proceed in Washington means “a verdict is unlikely to be issued before the election,” University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman wrote in The New York Times.

While the court moved more quickly than usual in the immunity case, it acted rather more quickly in other epic cases involving presidential power, including the Watergate tapes. Nearly 50 years ago, the court issued an 8-0 ruling just 16 days after hearing arguments that Richard Nixon needed to turn over tapes of Oval Office conversations, thus dismissing his claim of executive privilege.

Featured Stories

In March, it took the justices lower than a month after the argument to unanimously rule that the post-Civil War Constitution’s “insurrection clause” couldn’t be utilized by states to exclude Trump from the presidential election.

Three cases involving Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss underscore how often he has appeared in the court’s proceedings this yr, though now he does so as the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee. Trump was also a think about two social media cases and even a trademark dispute over the phrase “Trump too small.”

The court almost at all times completes its work by the end of June, even though it is unclear whether that can occur this yr.

The court will issue further decisions on Wednesday. Among other matters left to be resolved:

— Can doctors perform emergency abortions in states that banned abortions after the court overturned Roe v. Wade? In the Idaho case, the Biden administration said abortion have to be allowed in emergencies when the woman’s health is at serious risk, while the state says it only needs an exception to be included in a strict abortion ban to save lots of the woman’s life.

— The Supreme Court’s most significant homelessness case in a long time concerns whether people could be banned from sleeping outdoors when there isn’t any shelter space. A San Francisco-based appeals court ruled that such bans amounted to cruel and weird punishment. Leaders in California and across the West say the ruling makes it harder for them to regulate homeless encampments encroaching on sidewalks and other public spaces.

— Judges could overturn a 40-year-old decision that has been cited 1000’s of times in federal court cases and used to uphold environmental, public health, workplace safety and consumer protection laws. The decision, commonly known as Chevron, calls on judges to defer to federal regulators when the content of a statute will not be crystal clear. The decision has long been a goal of conservatives and business interests who say Chevron is robbing judges of their authority and giving an excessive amount of power to regulators.

— Three cases at the intersection of social media and government remain unsolved. Two cases involve social media laws in Texas and Florida that will limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users. In a third case, Republican-led states are suing the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to counter controversial social media posts on topics like Covid-19 and election security.

— The Supreme Court is reviewing the fate of a nationwide settlement with OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma, which might allocate billions of dollars to fight the opioid epidemic, but in addition provide legal protection to members of the Sackler family who own the company. The settlement has been on hold since last summer after the Supreme Court agreed to listen to it.

— Republican-led energy-producing states and the steel industry want a court to halt the Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” plan to combat air pollution until legal challenges are addressed. The plan goals to guard downwind states that receive unwanted air pollution from other states.

— Another major regulatory case could deprive the Securities and Exchange Commission of a major tool to combat securities fraud and have far-reaching effects on other regulatory agencies. The court was asked to rule that individuals facing civil fraud claims have the right to a jury trial in federal court.