Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

The Supreme Court just handed Trump an astonishing victory

So much for the rule of law.

Former President Donald Trump speaks as Justice Neil Gorsuch looks on during a ceremony in the Rose Garden at the White House April 10, 2017, in Washington, DC.
Former President Donald Trump speaks as Justice Neil Gorsuch looks on during a ceremony in the Rose Garden at the White House April 10, 2017, in Washington, DC.
Former President Donald Trump speaks as Justice Neil Gorsuch looks on during a ceremony in the Rose Garden at the White House April 10, 2017, in Washington, DC.
Eric Thayer/Getty Images
Ian Millhiser
Ian Millhiser is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that Trump’s DC criminal trial, the one concerning his attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election, must be delayed for at least another two months. The Court already effectively delayed his trial for an additional two and a half months in an order handed down last December.

This order is a colossal victory for Trump, and could potentially allow him to evade criminal responsibility for his attempts to overthrow the 2020 election altogether. Trump’s goal is to delay his trials until after Election Day. Should he prevail in that election, he can then order the Justice Department to drop all federal charges against him.

Trump was able to secure such an order from the justices by exploiting the fact that the federal judiciary ordinarily does not allow two different courts to have jurisdiction over the same case at the same time. So, when a party to a lawsuit or criminal proceeding appeals a trial court’s decision, the trial court often loses authority over that case until the appeal is resolved.

The ostensible reason for the Court’s order putting the trial on ice is that the Court needs that time to consider a weak appeal challenging a ruling by Judge Tanya Chutkan, the judge presiding over his DC criminal trial.

According to Trump, the Constitution forbids any prosecution of a former president for any “official acts” he engaged in while in office. The implications of this argument are astounding, and Trump’s lawyers haven’t exactly tried to hide them. During one court hearing, the former president’s lawyer told a judge that Trump could not be prosecuted even if he had ordered “SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,” unless Trump were also impeached and convicted by the Senate.

It’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court signing onto this argument, which has already been rejected by two other courts.

Yet Trump has now, with Wednesday’s ruling, leveraged this ridiculous legal argument to delay his DC trial for at least four and a half months, and the delay will likely extend much longer because the Court will need time to produce an opinion. The Court will hear oral arguments in late April.

Simply put, Wednesday’s order is a disaster for anyone hoping that Trump may face trial before the November election. And, because the nominal reason for this order is to give the justices more time to decide if the president is completely above the law, this decision raises serious doubts about whether this Court can be trusted to oversee Trump-related cases in a nonpartisan manner.

Politics
The Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything elseThe Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything else
Politics

McNutt v. DOJ could allow the justices to seize tremendous power over the US economy.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
Even this Supreme Court seems unwilling to end birthright citizenshipEven this Supreme Court seems unwilling to end birthright citizenship
Politics

At least seven justices appear to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment means what it says.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
Why an 8-1 Supreme Court just ruled in favor of anti-LGBTQ+ “conversion therapy”Why an 8-1 Supreme Court just ruled in favor of anti-LGBTQ+ “conversion therapy”
Politics

Sadly, the Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar is correct.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
The sneaky way Trump’s lawyers are supercharging ICEThe sneaky way Trump’s lawyers are supercharging ICE
Politics

A court just gave awful news to victims of ICE’s occupation of Minneapolis.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
The Supreme Court is scared it’s going to break the internetThe Supreme Court is scared it’s going to break the internet
Politics

This is a good thing.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
The ugly history behind Trump’s birthright citizenship case in the Supreme CourtThe ugly history behind Trump’s birthright citizenship case in the Supreme Court
Politics

The peculiar legal argument behind Trump’s attack on citizenship was invented by 19th-century anti-Chinese racists.

By Ian Millhiser