University of Texas Law Professor Lee Kovarsky — who has won a capital punishment case before the U.S. Supreme Court — told his followers to “relax” about what he portrayed as an inaccurate notion that the Supreme Court is “slow walking” its jurisprudence to help former president Donald Trump, who appointed three of the nine current justices.
Kovarsky wrote in response to the SCOTUS decision to hear Trump’s presidential immunity claim in the DOJ’s election interference case. The high court — already under an ethics microscope — drew condemnation for the move from many after taking weeks to decide and after rejecting Special Counsel Jack Smith’s earlier request to fast track a decision, bypassing the lower court. (Anticipating that SCOTUS would eventually hear the highly consequential case anyway, Smith expressed concern about delay given the upcoming presidential election.)
The SCOTUS decision and related scheduling — the court set an oral arguments date for April 22 — was viewed by many to have pushed a reasonable date for trial out beyond the election, though this may not be the case. .
Countering the opinions of other liberal-leaning lawyer-commentators — former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance titled her response “The Supreme Court Disappoints” — Kovarsky wrote:
“People relax, if SCOTUS was slow walking this for trump it wouldn’t have mooted the stay, it wouldn’t have treated the stay app as a cert petition, and it wouldn’t have expedited briefing.”
People relax, if SCOTUS was slow walking this for trump it wouldn’t have mooted the stay, it wouldn’t have treated the stay app as a cert petition, and it wouldn’t have expedited briefing. https://t.co/sABBQvWOg0
— Lee Kovarsky (@lee_kovarsky) February 28, 2024
The majority of the commenters challenged Kovarsky’s conclusion — not so much on his facts, but on the SCOTUS conduct and its implications. Many assessed the court’s decision as an outrage and a way to slow the case without “being obvious” about it.
I'm going to politely disagree. They're trying to slow walk it without it being obvious IMHO.
— M L C (@ChiCyph80) February 28, 2024
They didn't need nearly 3 week to decide this, they didn't need to allow 2 months before the case was heard.
And you & I both know Alito or Thomas are going to slow roll that dissent
Another commenter, conceding that Kovarsky is technically correct, still saw the procedural slowness as a feature, not a bug.
I think that’s fair overall, but what else explains the month-long delay in issuing a one page order? It took that long to agree to take up the case and decide on a briefing/arg schedule?
— Jackie Daytona (@thereisnojayjay) February 28, 2024
Kovarsky expanded his position in response to a question, revealing how if the court had wanted to be “obvious,” it could have “granted stay and taken full time to consider cert petition.”
if they were slow walking they would have granted stay and taken full time to consider cert petition.
— Lee Kovarsky (@lee_kovarsky) February 28, 2024
Despite Kovarsky’s directive, “I’m not relaxing!’ wrote another commenter who asserts “[SCOTUS] could have easily not taken the case and/or allowed the prosecution to continue concurrently with them hearing this case.”
A reply to that was: “They wouldn’t allow a prosecution to continue while the appeal is pending because if SCOTUS rules Trump is immune then most of Smith’s case is in the trash. A court is not going waste time and resources proceeding with a case that may wind up to be moot.”
Understanding Kovarsky’s intent, but still objecting to his conclusion, a Midwesterner expresses “shock” and outrage, opining that the court’s “medium-rolling” — if not slow-rolling — the case seems self-evident.
I get it that you have the very best intentions with explaining all of this. I can't imagine how exhausting it must be.
— M L C (@ChiCyph80) February 29, 2024
I will say, I am shocked that you seem to be kinda dying on the hill that they aren't medium-rolling this though. Scheduling this out 2 months is an awful look
For those who want to relax and can’t find their “ohm” in Korvasky’s technical interpretation, former Head of Public Affairs at the U.S. Justice Department Anthony Coley provides a different view centered on the DOJ’s preparedness.
This decision isn’t something that takes Jack Smith’s team by surprise, Coley assures, writing that even “if the Supreme Court waits until the last day of its term (late June-ish) to announce its decision, Trump is still more likely than not to face trial in federal Court THIS year.”
What I know for sure: DOJ prepares for every possibility, especially on really big cases.
— Anthony Coley (@AnthonyColey) February 29, 2024
Even if the Supreme Court waits until the last day of its term (late June-ish) to announce its decision, Trump is still more likely than not to face trial in federal Court THIS year.🧵
