The U.S. Supreme Court faces the monumental task of deciding two cases that could directly impact the presidential election — but one expert argues it would be a mistake to rush those decisions.
The justices must decide whether to reject Donald Trump's claim to broad criminal immunity and rule on the former president's eligibility to hold public office under the Constitution's insurrection clause, and they must do so in time for voters to make their decisions — but Bloomberg columnist Noah Feldman urged patience.
"The justices need to move reasonably speedily on both; if the court acts significantly more quickly in the Colorado case — particularly, if as expected, it rules against Colorado — it could give rise to the speculation that the justices are favoring Trump," wrote Feldman, a professor of law at Harvard University.
"But there is some reason to think that both cases may take a bit more time than voters would like. That’s because, as legal matters, both suits have some twists and turns."
The justices all seemed to agree a state cannot unilaterally block a presidential candidate, but Feldman said that some opinions are harder to articulate in a unified rationale, and he said that laying out the reasoning for whether a president can be tried criminally for actions he took while in office was both important and challenging.
ALSO READ: Using the ‘game theory of love’ amid political warfare
"It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the Supreme Court shouldn’t even bother to hear the immunity case, but should simply leave the DC Circuit's opinion in place," Feldman wrote. "That would save a lot of time and the criminal trial against Trump could begin much sooner. However, that would leave the law unsettled."
The court must settle the law on important constitutional questions, and Feldman said that would likely take more time than the public might hope.
"Ideally, March would see a ruling in the Colorado case and hearings in the immunity case, with a decision in the latter coming in April," he wrote.
