“Order In Pending Case”

 

So I’m thinking Barrett and Roberts didn’t take the ruling in Trump v US to heart as much as Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh did.

Or Barrett and Roberts are reconsidering the wisdom of their vote.*

(The Court’s decision here rests on the very reasonable legal principle that, well, this isn’t an emergency. Nothing, IOW, that can’t be handled in the ordinary course of appellate business. IF the final resolution at the New York Court of Appeals still leaves a federal question, which the four dissenting justices indicate it will, the Supreme Court could step in. Although this line: “Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of ‘unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing,” indicates the dissenters won’t make headway with the (slim) majority in the reason to find any federal issue here.

We live in hope.)

*NAAAHHH! 🙂‍↔️

Adding:

Oh look, Alito was one of the dissenting Justices who voted for Trump. Two days after his “perfect phone call” to Trump trying to get his former clerk a job in the Trump Admin. Imagine that. https://t.co/4apFWiND6K

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) January 10, 2025

I’m not convinced Alito wouldn’t have voted this way anyway, but now we have a clear example of appearance of conflict (eh, Chief Justice?). But ethics don’t apply to the Supreme Court, right, Justice Alito?

And, as Professor Vladeck pointed out, Trump’s request was completely at odds with the law. He tried to argue that his immunity blocked evidence from reaching the jury. But that issue, as the (slim) majority noted, should be raised in the regular course of appeal. Immunity that would present a valid issue here is the immunity that prevents the trial in the first place (because you are immune, capisce?). But that’s not the issue raised on appeal, so what were the dissenters thinking the valid issue was? Trump was immune post-facto (he wasn’t when the trial was conducted)? It could be some of the evidence was improperly allowed (if continuing to pay hush money to a porn star after the election and inauguration is “official presidential business” 🤷🏻‍♂️), based on Trump v US, but that issue is untimely raised now. Unless, again, the four horsemen of the Apocalypse are pushing for absolute Presidential immunity, the legendary “King’s ‘X’.” Which they would only apply to Trump, of course. Or ever need to…)