'Justice delayed is justice denied': Internet divided as Supreme Court declines to issue expedited ruling on Donald Trump's immunity case

WASHINGTON, DC: In a stunning development on Friday, December 22, the United States Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to special counsel Jack Smith by rejecting his request to expedite arguments on whether Donald Trump enjoys immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes committed during his presidency.

This decision, made without offering explicit reasoning and devoid of reported dissents, has far-reaching implications for Trump's legal strategy and the timeline of his impending trial.

Ambiguity surrounds Supreme Court's decision on Donald Trump's immunity trial

Smith's audacious move aimed at bypassing the federal appeals court could have accelerated the resolution of a fundamental issue in the election subversion criminal case against Trump.

However, the Supreme Court's refusal to fast-track the case not only complicates the legal landscape but also represents a notable victory for Trump, who has strategically employed delay tactics, particularly in contesting the immunity question that must be addressed before the trial can proceed.

While both parties retain the option to appeal a ruling from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court's reluctance to expedite the proceedings adds an element of uncertainty. The DC Circuit has already initiated an expedited review, scheduling oral arguments for January 9, with the election subversion trial slated for March.

Steve Vladeck, CNN's Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, expressed the ambiguity surrounding the Supreme Court's decision.

“The real question is what happens then,” said Vladeck. “Assuming the Court of Appeals rejects Trump’s claim, will it keep the trial on hold pending further review from the Supreme Court, or will it allow the trial to go forward and force Trump to seek a stay from the Supreme Court?

He speculated, “It’s still possible that the trial begins on March 4, but the Supreme Court’s apparent willingness to let the DC Circuit go first makes it at least somewhat – and perhaps significantly – less likely.”

In response to the Supreme Court's rejection, Trump continued to assert his immunity from federal prosecution, taking to social media to declare, "I was President; it was my right and duty to investigate and speak on the rigged and stolen 2020 Presidential Election."

He added, "Looking forward to the very important arguments on Presidential Immunity in front of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals!"

Trump's legal team, anticipating the potential political ramifications of the case, had urged caution. In court papers, they argued, "The fact that this case arises in the vortex of political dispute warrants caution, not haste."

The refusal to fast-track, therefore, aligns with their argument that the case requires thorough consideration rather than expeditious resolution.

After the Supreme Court's decision, Trump emphasized the upcoming arguments on Presidential immunity before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, highlighting the importance of this pivotal legal issue to his defense strategy.

Crucial questions on Donald Trump's immunity and double jeopardy

The dispute at the heart of the matter revolves around District Judge Tanya Chutkan's rejection of Trump's immunity claim. Trump's attorneys contended that the criminal indictment should be dismissed because he was working to "ensure election integrity" as part of his official capacity as president when he allegedly undermined the 2020 election results.

However, Judge Chutkan rejected this argument, asserting that such actions were not protected under presidential immunity. She subsequently paused all procedural deadlines in the case pending the appeal.

Smith's team, eager to expedite the resolution of the immunity question, sought to bypass the appeals court's review by involving the Supreme Court at this early stage.

In their petition to the Supreme Court, they argued, "It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected."

This urgent plea invoked a Watergate-era precedent where the Supreme Court expeditiously rejected then-President Nixon's claims of privilege.

Apart from the immunity question, the court may also weigh in on whether Trump is protected by double jeopardy. Trump's defense lawyers have argued that his acquittal by the Senate during the impeachment trial shields him from criminal prosecution for the same alleged actions, CNN reported.

Smith forcefully pushed back against Trump's claims that prosecutors were rushing the trial, stating, "The former president stands accused of serious crimes because the grand jury followed the facts and applied the law. The government seeks this Court’s resolution of the immunity claim so that those charges may be promptly resolved, whatever the result."

Seizing on the Supreme Court's order, Trump promptly began fundraising, leveraging the legal battles to rally support.

“The Supreme Court just DENIED the Biden prosecutor’s emergency request to ROB me of my right to presidential immunity,” one fundraising message read. “I will still have to fight for my rights in the Appeals Court – as the Biden Special Counsel will do everything in their power to rush my fake trial and wrongly CONVICT me before the 2024 election.”

Social media has mixed responses after Supreme Court's rejection

Critics of Trump tried to cope with the SC's bombshell decision on social media. "Justice delayed is justice denied," one fumed on X (formerly Twitter). "Won't save Trump. He will lose the election by a landslide. He WILL GO TO TRIAL," another predicted.

"@SCOTUS is bought and paid for. This decision should come as no surprise to ANYONE," someone else alleged. "Expand The Supreme Court," insisted another.

Trump supporters, however, celebrated the order.

"Jack Smith DENIED! Ha ha," one commented. "Almost as nefarious as Colorado taking Trump off the ballot. Well, until SCOTUS shoots that down too," another added.

"To frustrate the enemy is always worthwhile," a comment read. "Hahaha Trump is winning," someone else chimed in.

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.