The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to expedite a ruling on President Donald Trump’s claim that he has immunity from state criminal investigations.
In a series of decisions made on Monday, the Supreme Court decided it would not hear an appeal from Trump’s lawyers in a pending legal battle over his attempts to block a Manhattan grand jury from obtaining his tax returns. At the heart of the case are questions of whether a sitting president is immune from prosecution or subject to state criminal investigation.
The cases in New York and Maryland were part of Trump’s legal efforts to prevent his bank records and financial documents from being subpoenaed by Congress, as well as state prosecutors.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to expedite the case means Trump’s lawyers will have to wait for the legal battle to play out in the lower courts. The cases began in 2019, when Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow challenged congressional subpoenas seeking the president’s financial records, arguing they violated the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers.
Trump’s lawyers have tried to get the Supreme Court to reconsider his claim that he enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal investigation while in office. But the Supreme Court’s decision not to expedite the case Lynch v. Trump, in addition to a related case, Trump v. Vance, indicated that there may not be enough of a consensus for them to do so.
This means that the legal battle over the whether or not a sitting president is immune from state criminal prosecution will continue to be fought in the lower courts for the foreseeable future. So far, the courts have been split on the issue, and the Supreme Court’s decision not to expedite a ruling on Trump’s claim is a sign that there is still much to be worked out in the lower courts before the Supreme Court will consider taking on the matter.
While the Supreme Court’s decision not to expedite the legal process is disappointing for Trump and his lawyers, it sets the legal battle on a normal track. This means the courts have time to address the claims made about the president’s immunity in a more thorough manner, in full consideration of the individual facts of each case. No matter the result, this case will certainly impact constitutional law for years to come.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to expedite a ruling on President Donald Trump’s claim that he has immunity from state criminal investigations.
In a series of decisions made on Monday, the Supreme Court decided it would not hear an appeal from Trump’s lawyers in a pending legal battle over his attempts to block a Manhattan grand jury from obtaining his tax returns. At the heart of the case are questions of whether a sitting president is immune from prosecution or subject to state criminal investigation.
The cases in New York and Maryland were part of Trump’s legal efforts to prevent his bank records and financial documents from being subpoenaed by Congress, as well as state prosecutors.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to expedite the case means Trump’s lawyers will have to wait for the legal battle to play out in the lower courts. The cases began in 2019, when Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow challenged congressional subpoenas seeking the president’s financial records, arguing they violated the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers.
Trump’s lawyers have tried to get the Supreme Court to reconsider his claim that he enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal investigation while in office. But the Supreme Court’s decision not to expedite the case Lynch v. Trump, in addition to a related case, Trump v. Vance, indicated that there may not be enough of a consensus for them to do so.
This means that the legal battle over the whether or not a sitting president is immune from state criminal prosecution will continue to be fought in the lower courts for the foreseeable future. So far, the courts have been split on the issue, and the Supreme Court’s decision not to expedite a ruling on Trump’s claim is a sign that there is still much to be worked out in the lower courts before the Supreme Court will consider taking on the matter.
While the Supreme Court’s decision not to expedite the legal process is disappointing for Trump and his lawyers, it sets the legal battle on a normal track. This means the courts have time to address the claims made about the president’s immunity in a more thorough manner, in full consideration of the individual facts of each case. No matter the result, this case will certainly impact constitutional law for years to come.
