A Scalia opinion may end Trump's bid to delay trial
By Harry Litman / For Los Angeles Times
As all eyes watched every word filed by Donald Trump and federal prosecutors ahead of this weeks crucial arguments on immunity, a third party slipped in the side door with a brief that may dramatically foil the former presidents efforts to leverage the issue for maximum delay.
The watchdog organization American Oversight, which is not a party to the case, successfully petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to accept its friend-of-the-court brief on the ground that it provides a unique perspective.
-snip-
Enter the American Oversight brief, written by lawyers with the Washington-based firm Arnold & Porter. The brief relies on a unanimous 1989 Supreme Court opinion, Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The defendant in the criminal case, Midland Asphalt, had moved unsuccessfully for a dismissal of the charges based on the prosecutions alleged violation of grand jury rules.
The Supreme Court held that neither it nor the circuit court had the power to hear the case on interlocutory appeal, or before trial. As with the vast majority of issues that may arise at trial, the court ruled, this one could be considered only after a conviction.
https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/comment-a-scalia-opinion-may-end-trumps-bid-to-delay-trial/
2naSalit
(86,802 posts)I remember that case from one of my law classes, it's used in federal case law courses.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,619 posts)The DC Circuit issued a notice that the attorneys in oral arguments for the TFG immunity appeal should be prepared to discuss issues raised in the amicus briefs. TFG filed the appeal of Judge Chutkan's ruling on the immunity issue hoping for the automatic stay for the entire case. Jack Smith agreed that the stay was required and Judge Chutkan put the entire case on hold.
One of the amicus brief has great authority for the concept that in a criminal case, one does not stay the entire case due to a motion like TFG's claim of complete presidential immunity.
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
There is strong Supreme Court precedent indicating that appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to hear Trumps immunity appeal now. In Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a unanimous court, said that a trial courts decision is not immediately appealable unless the claim rests upon an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur. In 2010, future Justice Neil Gorsuch, then a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, succinctly encapsulated the Midland Asphalt rule: Only when a statutory or constitutional provision itself contains a guarantee that a trial will not occur may courts of appeals intervene prior to a final judgment to review the defendants claimed right not to be tried.
In Midland Asphalt, the court identified only two constitutional guarantees against trial that had historically been considered explicit enough to warrant interlocutory appeal: the Speech or Debate Clause (unique protections expressly afforded to members of Congress) and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. By contrast, one of the courts examples of a ruling not subject to interlocutory appeal was the denial of a claim of prosecutorial immunity. Chutkans denial of Trumps claim of presidential immunity should be treated in the same manner.
As a new amicus brief filed by American Oversight argues, Trumps assertion of presidential immunity rests on no explicit constitutional or statutory guarantee against trial, and so the D.C. Circuit should end the appeal and lift the stay. (One of the authors, Sawyer, is the executive director of American Oversight.) The D.C. Circuit has repeatedly applied Midland Asphalt in dismissing interlocutory appeals of immunity claims, including in a case where a former Cabinet secretary argued that he was immune on structural separation of powers grounds, like those that Trump invokes as the basis of his own alleged immunity. ....
Therefore, the D.C. Circuit should find that Trumps immunity appeal is premature and the trial must commence first, and also, alternatively, that presidential immunity does not exist. Doing so would prevent further unnecessary delay, in the event the Supreme Court believes that an interlocutory appeal is proper here as there would already be an appellate ruling on the merits for the court to consider.
This issue will be raised in the oral arguments on Tuesday
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,619 posts)The argument raised in an amicus filing may kill TFG's attempt to delay the Washington Jan. 6 case. TFG's immunity claims are really weak and I am surprised that TFG's attorneys briefs on this appeal have been so weak. The main reason for this appeal was to delay the Washington Jan. trial. According to an amicus filing there is great authority that no stay is warranted and Judge Chutkan can restart the case.
Link to tweet
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-01-03/donald-trump-jan-6-immunity-trial-appeal-dc-circuit-court-american-oversight-amicus-brief
Indeed it does. The brief makes the apparently compelling argument that the court shouldnt be hearing this appeal at all because it lacks jurisdiction that is, the power to consider it in the first place. If the court agrees, it would mean dismissing the appeal and returning the case to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, abruptly aborting Trumps best opportunity to delay the federal Jan. 6 trial.....
Enter the American Oversight brief, written by lawyers with the Washington-based firm Arnold & Porter. The brief relies on a unanimous 1989 Supreme Court opinion, Midland Asphalt Corp. vs. United States, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The defendant in the criminal case, Midland Asphalt, had moved unsuccessfully for a dismissal of the charges based on the prosecutions alleged violation of grand jury rules.
The Supreme Court held that neither it nor the circuit court had the power to hear the case on interlocutory appeal, or before trial. As with the vast majority of issues that may arise at trial, the court ruled, this one could be considered only after a conviction.
The court emphasized that in criminal cases, the compelling interest in prompt trials demands that courts apply the interlocutory appeal doctrine with utmost strictness. Federal courts have jurisdiction over such appeals, the justices found, only if they are brought under a constitutional or statutory provision that expressly gives the defendant a right not to go to trial.
This argument will be addressed in the Jan. 9 oral arguments. This will be fun to listen to