The tempestuous billionaire, charged in four criminal cases and candidate in the November 2024 election, must be tried from March 4 for trying to reverse the results of the 2020 election.
Published
Reading time: 2 min
Was Donald Trump protected by presidential immunity when he tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election? The American Supreme Court refused, Friday, December 22, to rule urgently on this question. This is a boon for the Republican, who hopes to be able to postpone the start of his trial. “Of course I have the right to presidential immunity”Donald Trump repeated again Friday on his Truth Social platform, assuring that he was of his “right and duty” to act in the face of what he considers, without proof, to be an election “volley”.
The tempestuous billionaire, indicted in four criminal cases and candidate in the November 2024 election, must be tried from March 4 for his pressure during the last presidential election. But his lawyers are trying by all means to shift the judicial calendar so that it does not coincide with that of the presidential election. The Republican primaries begin in January and could last until June. His counsel thus, among other things, invoked the argument according to which Donald Trump enjoys a “absolute immunity” for all the actions he committed while he was in the White House. And that he should not, for this reason, be prosecuted.
A first request for immunity rejected
Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will preside over the proceedings of this federal trial, rejected a first request for immunity in early December, considering that no text protected a former president against criminal prosecution. Donald Trump’s lawyers appealed this decision, asking an appeals court to rule on the subject. This additional stage, which will begin on January 9, could however take many weeks and risks, ultimately, postponing the start of the former president’s trial.
In mid-December, federal prosecutor Jack Smith appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the highest court in the country to rule directly on this question, without waiting for the decision of the court of appeal. What the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority after having been largely overhauled by Donald Trump, therefore refused on Friday. To the satisfaction of the principal concerned, who said he was impatient to present his arguments to the court of appeal.