There are times that call for decision-making with deliberate speed. We are living in them.
Americans are taught from an early age to follow the law. Ignorance is no excuse; neither is personal opinion or preference. This is our obligation, and part of the social contract we make with fellow citizens. But as this new year begins, it’s also appropriate to focus on the obligation the courts have to us, as numerous cases involving former president and current candidate Donald Trump work their way through the courts.
As this new year begins, it’s also appropriate to focus on the obligation the courts have to us.
Judges are largely permitted to set their own timetables for their cases and when they will decide them. Although procedural rules like the Speedy Trial Act set deadlines for some matters, this is the exception, not the rule. There is, for instance, no set time for a trial judge to rule on a motion or for when an appellate court must issue an opinion in a case. There is little that can be done, outside of the rare motion for mandamus in a case of exceptional delay, to speed courts on their path.
Courts can also move quickly when they choose to. In July 1974, the Supreme Court ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over tape recordings made in the Oval Office to the Watergate special prosecutor. The decision was 8-0; Justice William Rehnquist recused himself. The court heard arguments in Nixon v. United States on July 8 and issued its decision less than three weeks later. The court decided Bush v. Gore, the Florida vote recount case in 2000, the day after the case was argued.
But this is not always the case, even in matters of great importance. Sluggishness in decision-making hurts people the courts are supposed to serve, like when a court delays ruling in a civil case where a family that has suffered damages must wait for money they are entitled to and desperately need. In cases of national importance, delay can lead to a broad denial of rights, as it did when the Supreme Court was so slow to rule in the Alabama gerrymandering case that it allowed maps it later held were unconstitutional and discriminatory to be used in the 2022 midterm election.
Judges are only human, and courts’ resources are limited. No one should expect courts to move at lightning speed all the time, especially when they are working to guarantee all litigants due process. But there are times that call for decision-making with deliberate speed, and we are living in them.
The most significant of the four criminal prosecutions pending against Donald Trump is currently on hold while his push to have the prosecution dismissed based on his claim of presidential immunity winds its way through the appeals process. There is also the matter of whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment requires Trump’s disqualification from the ballot in 2024 because he participated in an insurrection after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution. Colorado, and now Maine, have ruled he is not eligible, while other states including California, Michigan and Minnesota have declined to do so. The Colorado case is now before the Supreme Court with a petition to expedite pending.
These cases are essential, each in their own way, to the 2024 election. Citizens have a right to know the outcome of criminal cases involving a leading candidate. As recent polls have demonstrated, many Americans who plan to vote for Trump in 2024 say that if he is convicted of a crime, their vote would change. If the polling holds up, the outcome in key states could shift. Either way — conviction or acquittal — Americans are entitled to know the outcome of as many of these matters as possible before they vote.
At a minimum, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which will hear oral arguments on the Trump immunity matter on Jan. 9, should render a prompt decision. Indeed, in its brief, the special counsel’s office asked the court to expedite its final judgment to ensure a speedier appeal to the Supreme Court, a measure that is within that court’s discretion to grant. The issue is a legal one and has already been fully briefed before the district court. That court, and the Supreme Court in turn, have an obligation to render their decisions quickly. Proceedings in the case, which is currently set for trial on March 4, are stayed until the appellate issues are decided. Similarly, the question of Trump’s eligibility to be on the ballot in 2024 requires a timely resolution, with primary dates and earlier deadlines for ballot printing coming up fast.
Courts may not always be able to act quickly, but it is incumbent upon them, and particularly on the Supreme Court, to do so here.
Recently, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard a matter involving Trump’s co-defendant in the Fulton County Georgia case and former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Meadows claimed the case against him in state court couldn’t proceed and had to be transferred to federal court. A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit heard the case on a Friday and entered their opinion, rejecting Meadows’ appeal, the following Monday.
That matter was no less complicated than the two Trump matters currently before the Supreme Court, the immunity matter, and the 14th Amendment appeal. The Supreme Court should follow the 11th Circuit’s lead, expedite oral arguments and rule quickly. Only then can we be assured of the kind of resolution citizens are entitled to before they cast their votes in November.
MSNBC
