There is no way to sugarcoat this. The decision by the United States Supreme Court to hear the appeal of Donald Trump on his claim that he has presidential immunity for conduct while in office allegedly involving his official acts makes it highly unlikely, but not impossible, that the American public will not have a verdict prior to the November election. If this happens, our judicial system has failed. Oral argument has been scheduled for the week of April 22nd, and if the Court were to decide the case in the normal course, a decision will not be rendered until mid to late June.
Given the amount of preparation time the trial Judge has promised the parties—88 more days—it is hard to see a trial starting much before Labor Day. The question for the trial Judge will be whether she wants to start a trial which will not conclude until after voting and the election. (Think of the practical issue of whether we want jurors who will be deciding Trump’s fate actually voting prior to deliberations). Ultimately the immunity appeal will be rejected, but the injustice is that there is no reason to decide the issue now in light of the scholarly decision by the Court of Appeal. There is a way to fast track a decision, but our Supreme Court seems disinclined to do so.
Veteran defense attorney Joe Hayden is InsiderNJ’s legal advisor.
(Visited 45 times, 45 visits today)
Click here for the full Insider Index
Insider NJ recently reported on Senator Troy Hayden’s perspective on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear President Trump’s immunity claim. Hayden, a prominent figure in New Jersey politics, has been vocal about his views on the matter.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Trump’s immunity claim is a significant development in the ongoing legal battles surrounding the President’s financial records and potential conflicts of interest. The case revolves around whether or not Trump can be shielded from state criminal investigations while in office.
Hayden, a staunch supporter of President Trump, has been quick to defend the President’s position on the matter. In a statement to Insider NJ, Hayden expressed his belief that the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case is a positive step towards clarifying the limits of presidential immunity.
Hayden argued that allowing state prosecutors to investigate and potentially prosecute a sitting President could set a dangerous precedent and undermine the integrity of the office. He emphasized the importance of protecting the President from politically motivated legal attacks.
However, not everyone shares Hayden’s perspective on the issue. Critics of Trump’s immunity claim argue that no one, including the President, should be above the law. They believe that allowing Trump to shield himself from state investigations could open the door to unchecked executive power.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Trump’s immunity claim is sure to spark further debate and scrutiny. As the case unfolds, it will be interesting to see how Hayden’s perspective and others’ viewpoints shape the outcome of this pivotal legal battle.
