Contempt of court: By delaying Trump’s trial, the Supreme Court disgraces itself  

Here is a question about the justice system in the United States: What is the difference between the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Merrick Garland and the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts? 

The answer: Garland waited too long to prosecute Donald Trump, apparently because he hoped to show that DOJ is not influenced by partisan politics. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t seem to care about its credibility. It is damaging its already poor reputation by making it possible for the former president to delay — and potentially escape — prosecution for his many alleged crimes.  

Garland tried too hard to restore confidence in the justice system; the Roberts court is destroying it. 

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court announced it would take up Trump’s claim that he’s immune from prosecution for any crimes he committed while president, including the four felonies related to his role in the 2021 insurrection. 

The nation’s second-highest court, the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, already ruled against Trump’s immunity claim. Most predicted the Supreme Court would decline jurisdiction and allow Trump’s trial to proceed. 

Instead, the justices decided to intervene, and scheduled oral arguments for April 22, throwing the trial schedule into chaos; they did not indicate how quickly they would rule after that. They could wait until their term ends in June. Given all the other requirements of moving Trump’s case to trial, the timing would make it unlikely the case would be tried and decided before the November election. 

This comports perfectly with Trump’s strategy of delaying his trials in four separate indictments so he could pardon himself if he wins the presidency — and it makes the court’s conservatives accessories in Trump’s strategy to evade justice. 

The idea that a president can intentionally break the law with complete immunity is wrong on its face. Trump crossed the line several times during his presidency, leading to two impeachments. But Republicans in the Senate saved him from being convicted and removed from office. 

If he escapes accountability for his current charges and regains the presidency, there may be no limit to what he might do.

The Supreme Court also was expected to rule quickly on the Colorado Supreme Court decision that Trump could not be on the state’s election ballot because he engaged in insurrection. The justices heard oral arguments on that case on Feb. 8. States requested a quick decision because they were up against deadlines for getting ballots ready. But the court still has not ruled.  

On Wednesday, Illinois became the third state in which a judge has decided the Constitution’s 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from its primary election because of the insurrection. (The other state is Maine.) 

Gallup’s latest poll on the Supreme Court shows less than half of Americans have trust and confidence in the Court. Court watchers have considered its handling of Trump’s cases as an indicator of whether its conservative supermajority wants to restore public trust or betray naked political bias. The justices appear to have chosen the latter. 

Given the speed at which the justice system charged more than 1,200 people for participating in the insurrection, jailing more than 460, the ponderous pace of Trump’s prosecution and the system’s tolerance of his delaying tactics make clear that justice is applied unequally. And if the ex president wins the election, it will be the highest-profile proof of the maxim “justice delayed is justice denied.” 

Of course, there will be one more jury to decide whether to hold Trump to account. By defeating him in November, voters would turn him back to the justice system to determine his guilt or innocence. And if voters are wise and principled enough to give Democrats control of the House and Senate, the next Congress will be able to do something about the disgraced Supreme Court. 

William S. Becker is co-editor of and a contributor to “Democracy Unchained: How to Rebuild Government for the People,” and contributor to Democracy in a Hotter Time, named by the journal Nature as one of 2023’s five best science books. He previously served as a senior official in the Wisconsin Department of Justice. He is currently executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project (PCAP), a nonpartisan climate policy think tank unaffiliated with the White House.