Colorado’s attempt to disqualify the president from the primary ballot is not an arcane legal dispute: A high court opinion on a case of ex-President Trump

The justices seemed unenthusiastic about Colorado’s attempt to disqualify Trump from the state’s primary ballot because of his alleged involvement in an insurrection. A decision in that case could come within weeks.

He’s fighting 91 felony counts, across four different jurisdictions, for allegations related to the 2020 election, his refusal to return highly classified documents to the FBI, and for paperwork violations over hush-money payments to an adult film star.

Outside of court, where Trump has pleaded not guilty, he has said that the case is interference in the election to return to the White House. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who named a special counsel to lead the inquiry, has denied under oath any meddling by Biden and others currently in the White House.

Lawyers working for Special Counsel Jack Smith said in court papers that those conspiracies culminated in violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, that injured more than 140 law enforcement officers and shook the foundations of American democracy.

Lawyers for Trump told the justices on Monday that they would apply to the high court to take the case or be prepared to file a petition for certiorari. They want the trial to be delayed indefinitely at the federal courthouse in Washington D.C. It’s not clear whether Trump should be granted absolute immunity from criminal charges related to certain acts he allegedly committed while in the White House.

“We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” the D.C. Circuit judges wrote. They said that placing the President outside of the reach of the three branches would collapse the system of separated powers.

The judges wrote in a unanimous opinion that former President Trump had all of the defenses of any other criminal defendants.

The Supreme Court must resolve Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution for the rest of his days in office, even if he leaves office, quickly, according to the editorial board.

As the editorial noted: “This isn’t some arcane legal dispute. Millions of people are waiting to hear if one of the two likely major-party candidates for president is found guilty of trying to overturn the election. A recent Gallup poll found that 70 percent of all American voters, and nearly as many Republican voters, would not vote for a candidate who had been found guilty of a felony.”

Trump’s lawyers are aware that the verdict is very important in the election. That’s why, in their filing, they have tried to portray the special counsel’s request for speed as politically motivated: “Conducting a monthslong criminal trial of President Trump at the height of election season,” the filing said, “will radically disrupt President Trump’s ability to campaign against President Biden — which appears to be the whole point of the special counsel’s persistent demands for expedition.”

That last assertion is mistaken; the “whole point” of Smith’s demands is to ensure a speedy trial, something that every defendant, including a former president, is entitled to. One of the core principles of the American justice system is that justice delayed is justice denied. Smith may respond quickly, even before a week is up, which would give the Supreme Court another chance to do the same.