Legal expert explains what's likely holding up Trump immunity ruling
As a US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit panel considers former President Donald Trump's argument that he should be immune from prosecution, MSNBC legal blog writer Jordan Rubin lays out a few possible reasons for the delay on a ruling in a Thursday, January 25 op-ed.
Rubin notes one of the reasons for the hold up could be that "the judges know that this opinion needs to be airtight. Whatever they decide will inevitably be appealed, which would mean not only their colleagues on the full D.C. Circuit — in what’s known as en banc review — but also potentially Supreme Court justices reviewing their work."
Second, he writes, it's possible "that even if all three judges on the panel conclude that Trump isn’t immune, they might have different rationales and may think that certain issues deserve more analysis than others," adding that "It’s possible that after a judge initially indicated they wanted to take a separate view, the panel is taking time to synthesize any disagreement into a single, coherent opinion."
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?
Rubin adds that "some disagreements are insurmountable, which leads to dissent. If a judge is intent on dissenting here, then that could take more time for the respective opinions to respond to one another."
He emphasizes, ultimately, "While some observers are eager for a ruling as soon as possible to avoid further delay of Trump’s federal election interference trial, which technically is set to start March 4, whether the opinion takes weeks instead of days isn’t the judges’ greatest concern."
READ MORE: George Conway shreds 'fallacious reasoning' of Trump’s 'immunity' claims
Rubin's full op-ed is available here.