Conservatives had hoped that the right-wing Supreme Court majority formed by former President Donald Trump would rule favourably in contentious cases including abortion, climate change, and religion. It has, however, been much less understanding of his attempts to obstruct congressional investigators’ access to presidential records, prosecutors’ access to tax information, and his fanciful allegations of electoral fraud. Trump’s most recent attempt to petition the nine justices in the Mar-a-Lago documents controversy may be a long shot and even be unsuccessful.
Trump asked the court to intervene in his disagreement with the Justice Department regarding secret papers that he had gathered at the Florida property on Tuesday by filing an emergency application.
This legal gambit, in contrast to his more frequently more florid and fantastical ones, is specific and legally nuanced; it is much smaller than any potential larger attempt to test the ex-authority president’s to assert executive privilege or some sort of claim that the search of his home in August was unlawful. Instead, Trump is asking the court to make sure that the more than 100 documents marked as classified are included in a review by a “special master,” a third party official.
The former president is entirely within his legal rights to do so. But it’s also true that Trump’s staff has repeatedly attempted to stall the Justice Department’s secret papers investigation in court, reflecting his habitual desire to delay accountability. Any delays in this situation would hasten Trump’s potential presidential campaign in 2024 and support his accusations of political persecution.
But like with other recent Supreme Court petitions by Trump, the strategy might not be successful, according to legal professionals.
• There is no assurance that the court, which is already mired in political controversy, will view this case as being of such critical constitutional or legal importance that ignoring it would be a breach of duty.
• The court might go more quickly than Trump anticipates, even if it decides to hear the case. For instance, Justice Clarence Thomas swiftly gave the Justice Department until 5 p.m. on October 11 to respond to Trump’s appeal on Tuesday.
• Additionally, even if he convinces the justices to hear the case, Trump may still end up losing because in order to obtain emergency relief, he must demonstrate that he has suffered irreparable harm—a standard that many legal experts think is high.
According to Elliot Williams, an AWN legal analyst and former Justice Department employee, “the Supreme Court has not looked very kindly on former President Trump in cases that he’s brought with respect to documents and his personal property both when Congress was the one seeking information from him and other government entities were the ones seeking information from him.”
“He has lost those cases pretty much every time. And it’s easy to understand how either the court decides to ignore this or, if they do, rules against him.
