The ruling is significant not only for its stark repudiation of Trump’s novel immunity claims but also because it breathes life back into a landmark prosecution that had been effectively frozen for weeks as the court considered the appeal.

Yet the one-month gap between when the court heard arguments and issued its ruling has already created uncertainty about the timing of a trial in a calendar-jammed election year, with the judge overseeing the case last week canceling the initial March 4 date.

Trump’s team vowed to appeal, which could postpones the case by weeks or months — particularly if the Supreme Court agrees to take it up. The judges gave Trump a week to ask the Supreme Court to get involved.

  • @frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    195 months ago

    After the abortion case, the Supreme Court has been cowardly refusing to hear cases where they know the conservative base wants it but nobody else does. They wash their hands and let the lower court’s ruling stand.

    Thomas will probably vote in favor to hear the case, because he’s an sycophantic idiot, but there probably won’t be enough others for them to accept the case.

    • @Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      195 months ago

      They decided 5-4 on the settled law that the Federal government has authority over the border. The 5 were on the correct side, but it should have bee 9-0. I wouldn’t put money on them being chastened by public backlash.

      • @vividspecter@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I suspect it’s not uncommon to have token dissent so they can pander to their donors and their base but still give the ruling that is the most politically expedient. Much like how a party will let a few members vote against a bill but the bill itself easily has the numbers to pass.

        Of course, it’s disgusting that supreme court justices have a political alignment at all, but it is what it is.