January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It’s really seeming like the DC Appeals Court may have made a huge blunder in forcing SCOTUS to act for the trial to go forward by automatically staying their own ruling.  They could have just put the ruling into effect and have allowed SCOTUS to issue a stay if they wanted to.

[brucejoel99]

It’s really seeming like the DC Appeals Court may have made a huge blunder in forcing SCOTUS to act for the trial to go forward by automatically staying their own ruling.  They could have just put the ruling into effect and have allowed SCOTUS to issue a stay if they wanted to.

In which case C.J. Roberts, being responsible for emergency D.C. Circuit filings, would've automatically imposed an administrative stay pending referral to the full Court for consideration & adjudication of Trump's motion. What the panel's automatic stay-by-SCOTUS did is entirely foreclose en-banc proceedings as practically moot, a huge blunder… for Trump's delay strategy!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It’s really seeming like the DC Appeals Court may have made a huge blunder in forcing SCOTUS to act for the trial to go forward by automatically staying their own ruling.  They could have just put the ruling into effect and have allowed SCOTUS to issue a stay if they wanted to.

In which case C.J. Roberts, being responsible for emergency D.C. Circuit filings, would've automatically imposed an administrative stay pending referral to the full Court for consideration & adjudication of Trump's motion. What the panel's automatic stay-by-SCOTUS did is entirely foreclose en-banc proceedings as practically moot, a huge blunder… for Trump's delay strategy!

Of course they -could- do this, but it seems like SCOTUS really doesn't want to get involved in this, and this action would mean SCOTUS getting involved.

What the Appellate Court did meant the trial couldn't move forward unless the Supreme Court took action.  The alternative would have meant the trial -would- move forward unless SCOTUS took action.

[emailking]

I don't know what indication there is they don't want to get involved, other than pundits hypothesizing (possibly correctly) that they don't want to deal with arguments about the President hypothetically murdering someone in their scared halls. I think if anything they'd ideally like the take the case (which could mean an opinion they agree with the Circuit, circumventing oral arguments, as postulated earlier) so there is a national precedent. Anyway, it's a big case so I think an administrative stay would be a given. They always do that, even when the Justice grating the stay agrees with the circuit decision.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I don't know what indication there is they don't want to get involved, other than pundits hypothesizing (possibly correctly) that they don't want to deal with arguments about the President hypothetically murdering someone in their scared halls. I think if anything they'd ideally like the take the case (which could mean an opinion they agree with the Circuit, circumventing oral arguments, as postulated earlier) so there is a national precedent. Anyway, it's a big case so I think an administrative stay would be a given. They always do that, even when the Justice grating the stay agrees with the circuit decision.

If SCOTUS really wanted to take the case, they would have taken the case in December.

[emailking]

SCOTUS is taking the case April 22, ugghh

[brucejoel99]

SCOTUS is taking the case April 22, ugghh

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1762961432449106429https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1762962393687093405
Currently in Spain without the S rn

[wbrocks67]

SCOTUS is taking the case April 22, ugghh

Jesus christ, and of course they won't even take it up until 2 months from now. That means they won't have a decision till May (June at the latest), which means the trial wouldn't be able to start until later in the Summer most likely.

Absolutely ridiculous that they couldn't just not take it up; I don't see why would they need to take it up unless they want to set a permanent precedent here on the issue. But there's also the chance that this hack court will somehow rule in favor of him. Not just that, but of course in doing this, they know it's going to delay the trial further.

[wbrocks67]

SCOTUS is taking the case April 22, ugghh

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1762961432449106429https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1762962393687093405
Currently in Spain without the S rn

I mean, taking it up by the end of Summer would not put it in peril at all. I don't imagine the trial would take over a month so if you have a trial in say, August, you could wrap it up by Sept/Oct. It's cutting it close, but I wouldn't say imperiled. However, it still presents a *chance* which is really annoying and it feels like the SC knows exactly what they're doing with this.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I assume they want to set a national precedent with this. If they do actually rule a President is immune from any criminal charges if he is in office, I guess Biden can execute whoever he wants in the spirit of national security.

[emailking]

If they take a month (big if) and assuming Chutkan doesn't give in to the argument that they should delay the trial until after the election (likely I think) and if the trial takes 2 months like she has estimated, we could actually be looking at a possible conviction in October! 🤯

[wbrocks67]

If they take a month (big if) and assuming Chutkan doesn't give in to the argument that they should delay the trial until after the election (likely I think) and if the trial takes 2 months like she has estimated, we could actually be looking at a possible conviction in October! 🤯

October surprise of all October surprises

I can't imagine the trial would take 2 months though? That seems excessive

[emailking]

Judge Luttig thinks (disappointingly) there must be dissent on the court and thusly they will announce a decision in the normal course so probably July. If that holds, Trump will likely be in the middle of the trial on election day.

[emailking]

If they take a month (big if) and assuming Chutkan doesn't give in to the argument that they should delay the trial until after the election (likely I think) and if the trial takes 2 months like she has estimated, we could actually be looking at a possible conviction in October! 🤯

October surprise of all October surprises

I can't imagine the trial would take 2 months though? That seems excessive

I wouldn't have thought so but that's Smith's estimate apparently.

Edit: I think jury selection is part of it, but that begins on the scheduled trial date.

[emailking]

Neal Katyal who's argued like 50 cases to SCOTUS thinks they must be worried about the immunity claim in MAL (11th circuit) and possibly getting conflicting rulings so they want to head it off now, also thinks they could decide it by May.

[brucejoel99]

SCOTUS is taking the case April 22, ugghh

Jesus christ, and of course they won't even take it up until 2 months from now. That means they won't have a decision till May (June at the latest), which means the trial wouldn't be able to start until later in the Summer most likely.

Absolutely ridiculous that they couldn't just not take it up; I don't see why would they need to take it up unless they want to set a permanent precedent here on the issue. But there's also the chance that this hack court will somehow rule in favor of him. Not just that, but of course in doing this, they know it's going to delay the trial further.

I mean, taking it up by the end of Summer would not put it in peril at all. I don't imagine the trial would take over a month so if you have a trial in say, August, you could wrap it up by Sept/Oct. It's cutting it close, but I wouldn't say imperiled. However, it still presents a *chance* which is really annoying and it feels like the SC knows exactly what they're doing with this.

If they take a month (big if) and assuming Chutkan doesn't give in to the argument that they should delay the trial until after the election (likely I think) and if the trial takes 2 months like she has estimated, we could actually be looking at a possible conviction in October! 🤯

Judge Luttig thinks (disappointingly) there must be dissent on the court and thusly they will announce a decision in the normal course so probably July. If that holds, Trump will likely be in the middle of the trial on election day.

Chutkan promised to give Trump a day back of discovery & trial prep for every day that trial was stayed pending the appeal of his immunity motion, so if one assumes that SCOTUS doesn't rule on an Apr. case 'til the end of Jun., it's 198 days from Dec. 13th when Chutkan lost the case on immunity-appeal to the end of SCOTUS' term on Jun. 28th, putting trial in 2025.

[emailking]

If they take a month (big if) and assuming Chutkan doesn't give in to the argument that they should delay the trial until after the election (likely I think) and if the trial takes 2 months like she has estimated, we could actually be looking at a possible conviction in October! 🤯

Judge Luttig thinks (disappointingly) there must be dissent on the court and thusly they will announce a decision in the normal course so probably July. If that holds, Trump will likely be in the middle of the trial on election day.

Chutkan promised to give Trump a day back of discovery & trial prep for every day that trial was stayed pending the appeal of his immunity motion, so if one assumes that SCOTUS doesn't rule on an Apr. case 'til the end of Jun., it's 198 days from Dec. 13th when Chutkan lost the case on immunity-appeal to the end of SCOTUS' term on Jun. 28th, putting trial in 2025.

I don't think so, I believe they get 7 more weeks once she gets the mandate back.

[brucejoel99]

If they take a month (big if) and assuming Chutkan doesn't give in to the argument that they should delay the trial until after the election (likely I think) and if the trial takes 2 months like she has estimated, we could actually be looking at a possible conviction in October! 🤯

Judge Luttig thinks (disappointingly) there must be dissent on the court and thusly they will announce a decision in the normal course so probably July. If that holds, Trump will likely be in the middle of the trial on election day.

Chutkan promised to give Trump a day back of discovery & trial prep for every day that trial was stayed pending the appeal of his immunity motion, so if one assumes that SCOTUS doesn't rule on an Apr. case 'til the end of Jun., it's 198 days from Dec. 13th when Chutkan lost the case on immunity-appeal to the end of SCOTUS' term on Jun. 28th, putting trial in 2025.

I don't think so, I believe they get 7 more weeks once she gets the mandate back.

Basing this conclusion off Parloff's analysis of Chutkan's order from back when everybody was still waiting to hear from the D.C. Circuit:

https://twitter.com/rparloff/status/1748347757079761316
EDIT: nvm, you're right

https://twitter.com/rparloff/status/1757938321802592441https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1757442319882584369

[emailking]

The 7 months to prepare had already been running for a while though, it's just paused, from the time he appealed her immunity ruling until the moment SCOTUS decides this.

[Progressive Pessimist]

This Supreme Court is just the worst.

That's the understatement of the century.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

SCOTUS is taking the case April 22, ugghh

Well ****.

[emailking]

Supreme Court to decide Trump immunity claim, further delaying election subversion trial

The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether Donald Trump may claim immunity in special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case, adding another explosive appeal from the former president to its docket and further delaying his federal trial.

The court agreed to expedite the case and hear arguments the week of April 22.

The move puts the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination on track for another high-stakes date with the high court, which earlier this month heard arguments in a separate case questioning whether Trump disqualified himself from running for a second term under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection ban.”

The high court ordered that a lower court ruling against Trump remain on hold until it decides the issue.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/politics/trump-supreme-court-immunity/index.html

[Inmate Trump]

Seriously?

This should’ve been handled a long time ago. No way this gets done before the election, and if Trump wins it all disappears.

You can literally attack the country and get away with it.

[emailking]

It is 88 days they still get to prepare for trial once it's decided, not 7 weeks like I said.

Some legal experts think Smith will ask Chutkan to renege on that under the circumstance. That would be up to her though.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Really good thread from Steve Vladeck on what's probably happening with the SCOTUS immunity appeal:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1761070086863876421

1. A quick #thread on where things stand with former President Trump's application to #SCOTUS to keep the January 6 prosecution on hold.

First, we expect whatever the Court does to be a "miscellaneous order." Such an order can theoretically come at any time and without warning.

2. Second, although the justices *are* having a regularly scheduled Conference today, chances are that the Court has already made whatever decision it's going to make—and we're just waiting for the disposition.

So why has it taken 2 weeks so far? It's *impossible* to know, but:

3. My best guess is that one of two things has happened:

Possibility 1 is that the Court has voted to *deny* the stay, and some number of justices are writing separate opinions respecting that result (concurrences/ "statements"/dissents).

Two weeks is *not* that long for that.

4. Possibility 2 is that the Court has voted to go all the way to the merits—to issue a brief ruling by the full Court that *affirms* the D.C. Circuit's rejection of former President Trump's immunity.

Such a disposition would also take a little time to craft/get everyone behind.

5. If, instead, the Court was inclined to grant the stay and also expedite its consideration of the merits, hold argument, etc., there's *no* reason for this delay; that order could and should have come pretty quickly (and I wouldn't expect any separate writings respecting it).

6. And if the Court voted to grant a stay but *not* expedite, that might well have provoked dissents from one or more justices. That might explain the delay, but (1) those justices would have every reason to move quickly; & (2) I still think this outcome is very unlikely overall.

7. In other words, although there are several explanations for why it's taking the Court this long, the most likely ones are all *bad* for Trump. None of this is a guarantee, of course; one of the *problems* with the shadow docket is how much we're left to guess. But that's mine.

8. Anyway, I hope this thread is helpful. For longer explanations of all of this, see the issue of my #SCOTUS newsletter, "One First," that tried to cover all of the bases:

https://stevevladeck.substack.com/p/66-united-states-v-trump

/end

So it seems like the summary by Vladeck was entirely wrong.