Jonathan Turley Is A Putz

None of what Turley is saying about the timing is correct. https://t.co/2Qt6t3oOMU

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) February 6, 2024

The court specifically ruled that Trump has until the 12th (of February) to seek a writ from the Supreme Court, or the Appeals Court stay in Chutkan lifts automatically. The Supremes would have to issue a stay then, because jurisdiction would pass to them. If Trump seeks an en banc rehearing, the stay also lifts automatically (because then jurisdiction stays with the appeals court, and they can do as they wish).  Unless five justices vote for a stay next week, this case goes back to the trial court, which can proceed. (Unless, yes, the Supremes stay the case later than next week, but that is vanishingly unlikely.)

I spell this out so tediously because Professor Turley should know that (is what Professor Vladeck is saying).

Here’s the language in the opinion which Turley is supposed to have read:

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate through February 12, 2024. If, within that period, Appellant notifies the Clerk in writing that he has filed an application with the Supreme Court for a stay of the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari, the Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate pending the Supreme Court’s final disposition of the application. The filing of a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc will not result in any withholding of the mandate, although the grant of rehearing or rehearing en banc would result in a recall of the mandate if the mandate has already issued.

The mandate directs the trial court to carry on. If the case is reheard, the mandate issues. 

Turley is a putz, in short.