The ruling is significant not only for its stark repudiation of Trump’s novel immunity claims but also because it breathes life back into a landmark prosecution that had been effectively frozen for weeks as the court considered the appeal.

Yet the one-month gap between when the court heard arguments and issued its ruling has already created uncertainty about the timing of a trial in a calendar-jammed election year, with the judge overseeing the case last week canceling the initial March 4 date.

Trump’s team vowed to appeal, which could postpones the case by weeks or months — particularly if the Supreme Court agrees to take it up. The judges gave Trump a week to ask the Supreme Court to get involved.

  • frezik
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Not sure who you’re yelling at. We seem to agree.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      cowardly refusing to hear cases

      I meant that bit. I don’t find that cowardly, seems perfectly normal jurisprudence. No?