The SCOTUS wait game on whether to keep the January 6 prosecution on hold as Trump has asked is likely due to some back chambers maneuverings. But one expert believes the nine justices have already made their decision.
"First, we expect whatever the Court does to be a 'miscellaneous order,'" Steve Vladeck, a legal scholar and University of Texas Law School professor, wrote in a Twitter thread.
"Such an order can theoretically come at any time and without warning. Second, although the justices *are* having a regularly scheduled Conference today, chances are that the Court has already made whatever decision it's going to make—and we're just waiting for the disposition."
ALSO READ: How Donald Trump is spreading a dangerous mental illness to his supporters
Former President Donald Trump filed a request to the Supreme Court to pause his criminal election interference trial, repeating his maxim that he was absolutely immune from prosecution on charges related to plotting to flip the 2020 presidential election after losing to President Joe Biden.
His legal team filed an emergency appeal on Monday following oral arguments.
“Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the Presidency as we know it will cease to exist,” the papers say.
Since then SCOTUS has remained silent.
So what is stalling the release of the said disposition?
Vladeck suspects the Court possibly "voted to *deny* the stay, and some number of justices are writing separate opinions respecting that result (concurrences/ 'statements'/dissents)."
The Court has voted "all the way to the merits—to issue a brief ruling by the full Court that *affirms* the D.C. Circuit's rejection of former President Trump's immunity."
He notes that this option drags on because it takes a "little time to craft/get everyone behind."
Then comes the possibility that the Court is granting Trump's stay.
"If, instead, the Court was inclined to grant the stay and also expedite its consideration of the merits, hold argument, etc., there's *no* reason for this delay; that order could and should have come pretty quickly (and I wouldn't expect any separate writings respecting it)," he writes.
An addendum to that is if the stay has been granted but not expedited "that might well have provoked dissents from one or more justices."
But Vladeck again doubts this.
"That might explain the delay, but (1) those justices would have every reason to move quickly; & (2) I still think this outcome is very unlikely overall," he said.
But one thought as to the SCOTUS stall is that none of it bodes well for the 45th president.
"In other words, although there are several explanations for why it's taking the Court this long, the most likely ones are all *bad* for Trump," writes Vladeck.
