It has been almost two months since the US Supreme Court heard Donald Trump lawyers' argument that the former president should enjoy broad immunity from federal prosecution, pushing the MAGA hopeful's January 6 election interference trial back close to — or even after the election.
Legal experts like former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut argue that the high court could have taken several routes to avoid such a delay.
In a Monday, June 17 op-ed published by MSNBC, Aftergut writes that the conservative majority court is "creating a crisis — a collision between a Justice Department tradition and the necessity of an informed electorate."
READ MORE: Law professor reams SCOTUS for moving to 'protect Donald Trump' with immunity ruling
Although "this is not a hard case," Aftergut asserts that "this reactionary Supreme Court majority is proving that even easy cases can make bad law when rulings are driven by the majority’s partisan biases."
Furthermore, the former federal prosecutor adds that SCOTUS' dilemma could have been "easily avoided. Unfortunately, however, the court’s radical conservative majority rejected three sensible ways to ensure that Trump got tried to a verdict before the election."
The Lawyers Defending American Democracy counsel then emphasizes three ways this "looming conflict" could have been avoided.
Aftergut writes, "First, the court could have taken the case in December when special counsel Jack Smith petitioned for it to be heard. Second, the justices could have declined to take the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit comprehensively (and correctly) rejected Trump’s appeal. The case could have gone straight back to the district court for trial."
READ MORE: Ex-prosecutor: SCOTUS delay in deciding Trump immunity is 'corrosive' to democracy
He adds, "Third, even when the court accepted the case in February, it could have expedited its hearing, then issued a ruling in March or April. Instead, the court set the hearing for the last possible date for oral arguments."
Aftergut's full op-ed is available at this link.
