WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has still not acted as of Friday evening on two major cases involving former President Donald Trump.
The two cases, which concern Trump’s his last-ditch effort to block his election interference trial and an attempt from voters to kick him off the Colorado Republican primary ballot, are ripe for action after being fully briefed, meaning both sides have made their arguments.
Decisions could drop at short notice.
Trump filed his emergency application seeking to put his election interference trial on hold on Feb. 12. Briefing was completed at the end of last week.
The court is considering whether to intervene over Trump’s claim that the indictment should be dismissed because he has presidential immunity for actions related to his attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
Oral arguments were held in the Colorado case on Feb. 8, with a ruling expected quickly on whether Trump is ineligible because of his role leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment bars people from office if they “engaged in insurrection.”
While the court is considering Trump’s request to block the election interference trial, lower court proceedings remain on hold, meaning no trial can take place.
The court has several options, such as denying Trump’s request outright or taking up the case and hearing oral arguments so it can issue a full ruling on the immunity question.
A swift ruling was expected in the Colorado case because the Colorado primary takes place on March 5.
Typically the court signals on Friday if rulings are likely the following week, but there is no indication of any being issued next week.
Based on the court’s normal calendar, there would have to be a change to the schedule in order for another ruling day to be added before the Colorado primary.
The Colorado ruling would be expected to be issued on a normal ruling day, while the immunity decision could come at any time.
In the meantime, Trump remains on the Colorado ballot. It appeared from the oral argument that he would win the case, so it may mean there is no urgency from the court to issue a ruling quickly if it merely affirms the status quo.
Source: | This article originally belongs to Nbcnews.com
