In a significant decision, the Supreme Court chose not to expedite consideration of former President Donald J. Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution on charges related to his alleged role in plotting to overturn the 2020 election. This ruling is seen as a victory for Trump and his legal team as it aligns with their strategy of delaying the proceedings to extend past Election Day. However, it does not provide any indication of the Court's stance on the substance of Trump's immunity claim. The fate of Trump's trial will now be determined in the federal appeals court in Washington, and potentially return to the Supreme Court.

The central issue revolves around Trump's attempt to have the entire indictment against him dismissed based on a novel argument that has not been tested in court before. He asserts absolute immunity from criminal prosecution on charges of election interference, arguing that these actions were taken while he was in office. However, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the Federal District Court in Washington rejected this claim earlier this month, stating that there is no constitutional or historical support for the idea that a former president should be exempt from federal criminal law. Trump appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, fearing that a prolonged appeal could delay the trial scheduled for March.

To expedite the process and preserve the trial date, Special Counsel Jack Smith made an unusual request to the Supreme Court, asking them to consider the case before the appeals court. However, the Supreme Court rejected this request in a brief order issued on Friday. As a result, the immunity matter will now be heard by the appeals court in Washington, which has set an accelerated schedule for the case. A three-judge panel, including two judges appointed by President Biden and one by President George H.W. Bush, has ordered all briefs to be submitted by January 2, with oral arguments scheduled for January 9.

If the appeals court rules in favor of Trump, the special counsel's office is expected to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court. However, it is more likely that the appellate judges will reject Trump's immunity claims. In that case, Trump could request a review by the full circuit court, which would further prolong the process. If the full court declines or rules against him, Trump would then seek another review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the option to decline the case and let the appeals court ruling stand, potentially leading to a new trial date set by Judge Chutkan.

If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, they would have to determine how quickly to proceed. The court could make a swift decision and issue a ruling on the immunity issue before the end of their current term in June. However, if they do not complete their work by then, the case would extend into the next term, which begins in October, and a trial would not occur before the November election. This scenario raises concerns that voters would not have the opportunity to hear the evidence against Trump before making their decision, and if he were to win, Trump could choose to prevent the case from proceeding further.

The outcome of the appeals court ruling will significantly impact the start of the trial. If the appeals court rules against Trump and the Supreme Court upholds this decision, the trial may be delayed by a few weeks. Under this scenario, a jury could be impaneled by April or May, well before the peak of the campaign season. However, if the Supreme Court takes up the case and follows a leisurely pace, a trial might not occur before the general election, depriving voters of the chance to hear the evidence against Trump before casting their ballots. Ultimately, the Supreme Court's handling of the case will have profound implications for the federal election interference indictment and Trump's ability to delay or dismiss the trial.