Supreme Court’s Headed for ‘Shock’ Ruling in Trump Case: Watergate Lawyer

The Supreme Court is poised to hand former President Donald Trump a loss in his efforts to avoid a trial in the federal election interference case, Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman predicted.

Trump has celebrated the Supreme Court rejecting Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith’s plea to rule on his claims of presidential immunity. The Court declined to rule on Trump’s claims, instead saying an appellate court must first make a determination before they could consider an appeal.

Akerman said in an opinion article published in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the court would not give Trump the ruling he wants.

Smith has led the DOJ investigation into Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which he has claimed was stolen via widespread voter fraud despite a lack of substantial evidence.

The DOJ charged Trump with counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights in connection to the investigation, with a focus on the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and the alleged plot to submit false slates of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and has maintained his innocence, accusing prosecutors of targeting him for political purposes. He has argued presidential immunity would shield him from being tried for these charges, though critics argue he was not acting in his official capacity at the time of the alleged offenses.

In the Journal-Constitution piece titled “Some thoughts on presidential immunity,” Akerman argued that if the appellate court rules against Trump and he appeals, the court would decline to hear his case. Akerman is a former assistant special Watergate prosecutor and former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

“My New Year’s prediction: The Supreme Court will refuse to hear Mr. Trump’s inevitable appeal from the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals finding that presidential immunity does not apply to Mr. Trump’s alleged criminal acts arising out of the Jan. 6th insurrection. The criminal prosecution against Mr. Trump will proceed to trial in March,” he wrote.

Raw Story characterized such a decision as a “shock.”

Newsweek reached out to Trump’s campaign for comment via email.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek Wednesday that the Supreme Court is unlikely to buy Trump’s immunity arguments.

“Executive immunity generally covers official acts, and at least in the civil context, courts have generally held that campaigning is outside the scope of one’s official duties. That’s why Trump and his lawyers are trying to frame his conduct leading up to January 6 as investigating election fraud and interference,” Rahmani said.

Akerman wrote that the court’s rejection of Smith’s motion “says nothing” about Trump’s actual claims of immunity. He also said the former president’s alleged attempts to delay the trial are “doomed to fail” because the Court is likely inclined to avoid intervening in matters related to the 2024 presidential election.

Trump’s federal election trial is set to begin on March 4, but legal analysts have suggested he may be trying to delay it until after the presidential election. If Trump wins in November, he would have the authority to either pardon himself or instruct the DOJ to drop charges against him.

“Presidential immunity is simply not a controversy the Supreme Court needs, or in which it should want to partake, thereby permitting the criminal trial of Mr. Trump to proceed as scheduled without the indeterminable delay he hopes to achieve,” Akerman wrote.