US: Supreme Court refuses to hear Trump immunity case, delaying trial

The Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) on Friday (Dec 22) rejected to immediately decide whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity for crimes that he allegedly committed while being in office.

The ruling came as a setback for special counsel Jack Smith, who wanted the case to be heard in an expedited manner.

Earlier on December 1, Trump’s immunity claim was rejected by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan. This led Trump’s lawyers to appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in a bid to delay the trial.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

Watch:US polls: Donald Trump barred from running for President in Colorado

×

Responding to this move, Jack Smithdirectly approached the Supreme Court to hear the case.

However, in a one-line order, the SCOTUS declined to intervene, without providing any reason for the same.

Win for Donald Trump

The efforts being made by Trump and his team to delay the trial, set to begin in March, for as long as possible seem to be working for now.

The case will nowwind through the appeals process, potentially delaying the trial.

In August this year, Trump was indicted on election subversion charges. He is being investigated foralleged attempts to overturn the election leading up to the 6 January Capitol riot.

Trump appealedthe decision, but US District Judge Tanya Chutkanpaused the case.

Trump’s claims on immunity

Trump continues to claim that he is immune from prosecution because he was acting in his official capacity as president before and during the riot.

While reacting to the SCOTUS ruling, Trump on his Truth Social platform said the Supreme Court had rejected a "desperate attempt to short circuit our Great Constitution", adding that he was "entitled to Presidential Immunity".

Jack Smith’s argument

Jack Smith in his SCOTUS petition said that the highest court should take the matter up as it "concerned the heart of our democracy."

"The United States recognises that this is an extraordinary request," he said, adding "This is an extraordinary case."

The case presented "a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune," he argued.

(With inputs from agencies)