The Urgent Need for the Supreme Court to Address the US Political and Legal Chaos

The latest election controversies surrounding Donald Trump provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to assert its influence as the stature of the justices continues to decline. The Court has been forced into a defensive position for months due to contentious decisions that challenge precedents and behavior outside the courtroom.

The court's decisions will have a significant impact on the 2024 presidential election and the overall direction of American democracy. The justices' ability to demonstrate in the public eye that the court is impartial and not influenced by political considerations will be crucial for maintaining the institution's reputation.

Former President Donald Trump appears during a campaign event in Durham, New Hampshire, on December 16.

Doug Mills/The New York Times/Redux

The Supreme Court denied Jack Smith's request to expedite the hearing of the Trump immunity dispute, indicating that they are not prepared to address the issue at this time. The court's decision means that the question of whether former President Trump should be protected from prosecution for actions taken during his time in office will have to be revisited in the future.

The pressing issues revolve around Trump's potential immunity from federal prosecution related to his actions after the 2020 election, as well as the possibility of states disqualifying him from 2024 ballots due to his involvement in the January 6, 2021 US Capitol insurrection.

The decision on Friday was whether the Supreme Court would promptly address the immunity question or if it would wait for an intermediate appellate panel to handle it first, potentially prolonging the preliminary phase of the litigation by several months. Trump is facing charges for his supposed efforts to "disenfranchise millions of voters" by attempting to overturn election results in key states that he lost, including on January 6.

The justices issued a one-sentence order with no recorded vote or dissent, leaving the issue to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court will hear oral arguments on January 9. As the presidential election approaches, there is increasing pressure for judicial transparency. Regardless of the eventual ruling, there is a clear demand for legal reasoning that is transparent, grounded, and instills confidence.

Former President Donald Trump greets supporters as he arrives at a commit to caucus rally, Tuesday, Dec. 19, 2023, in Waterloo, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Charlie Neibergall/AP

Takeaways from Colorados historic ruling that Trump is ineligible for office based on 14th Amendments insurrectionist ban

Since May 2022, a leaked draft of their decision to overturn constitutional abortion rights has resulted in the justices facing intense scrutiny and criticism. Their ultimate overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion nationwide, continues to impact law and political outcomes, as well as influence culture and personal family decisions. The conservative-liberal bench, with its 6-3 supermajority, has persisted in its rightward drive by eliminating racial affirmative action at colleges and reducing federal regulatory power.

In the past year, concerns about the ethical conduct of Supreme Court justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have grown as a result of investigations into luxury trips and financial benefits from wealthy conservatives. Gallup's September report showed that public approval of the court remains at an all-time low, with less than half of Americans expressing trust and confidence in the court.

How much do the justices worry about public opinion?

The justices' institutional reputation's influence is hard to gauge. Chief Justice John Roberts made it clear early on that the court operates differently from the White House or Congress.

In a 2009 C-SPAN interview, Roberts emphasized that the public should understand that the Supreme Court is not a political branch of the government. He pointed out that they are not elected and that there are limited ways for the public to directly influence the court's decisions. However, in more recent years, Roberts has shown a greater awareness of public perceptions and has taken steps to moderate the court, including advocating for the court's first written ethics code.

The justices reluctantly revealed the code, citing the need to address any public misconceptions about their standards. They stated that the lack of a code had led to a misunderstanding that they were exempt from ethics rules, unlike other judges in the country.

Some justices, including liberal Elena Kagan, have expressed support for ethics rules and the significance of public oversight. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett also touched on this theme, while also addressing the idea of public "misimpressions."

From Nixon to Trump

She mentioned that when news coverage encourages people to engage with the court's work, pay attention to its activities, and understand the Constitution, it is a positive development. However, if it leads to misconceptions, then it becomes a negative development.

In the case of US v. Trump, the lawyers appealed to the justices' institutional interests from their conflicting viewpoints. The special counsel highlighted the court's unique responsibility in protecting the Constitution from potential presidential misconduct. Smith's team referenced the court's prompt action in the 1974 case of US v. Nixon, where evidence withheld by President Richard Nixon was expedited for a criminal trial.

Nixon attempted to claim executive privilege in order to conceal Oval Office tape recordings that were being requested for the Watergate conspirators' trial. The justices ultimately ruled in a matter of weeks, compelling Nixon to disclose recordings of conversations relating to the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. (Shortly after the court's ruling, Nixon resigned.) In a historical context, the justices moved quickly fifty years ago when they agreed within a week to grant a special prosecutor's request for early intervention, bypassing an appellate court ruling. The Supreme Court accelerated the briefing process, held oral arguments on July 8, and concluded the matter by July 24, completing the process in just two months.

Video Ad Feedback

CNN legal analyst breaks down Colorado Supreme Court Trump ruling

01:02

- Source:

CNN

Comparing the significance of the US v. Trump case, Smith highlights the uniqueness of the situation - criminal charges against a former President for actions during his term. These alleged actions are accused of interfering with the constitutional process of certifying the election winner.

On the other hand, Trump's legal team argues that the urgency for swift action is due to the upcoming 2024 election cycle and expresses concern that involving the special counsel would lead to political partisanship among the justices.

Trump's attorneys wrote that the Special Counsel's request could damage the fairness of the Court's procedures with political bias. They referred to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial that accused Smith of involving the Supreme Court in political matters. The attorneys stated that the Special Counsel is asking the Court to disregard established principles of caution, bypass the usual process of appellate review, and hastily make a decision on a legal issue of great significance. They expressed concern that the Special Counsel is attempting to involve the Court in a rushed and politically motivated decision on some of the most important questions in the Court's history. They recommended that the Court refuse this request.

And on Friday, it did. The question is what the court does next, when Trumps immunity claim returns.