Ask Jordan: Did the Supreme Court not have the five votes needed to grant a full stay?

Original Article:

Source: Link

“The Supreme Court didn’t grant the stay in the federal election interference case but instructed the court of appeals not to issue its mandate until the Supreme Court had ended its consideration of the immunity issue. Could it be that the Supreme Court didn’t have the fifth vote needed to grant a stay, so with this sleight of hand, it grossly violated its own rules? Can we find out how many justices agreed to the order issued and who they were? While the others silently sat by and let it happen.” — George Nilson, Chestertown, Maryland Hi George, As your question suggests, the Supreme Court’s order granting review in the immunity appeal is somewhat mysterious — and, perhaps, a little shady. The court didn’t outright grant Trump a stay. But it effectively did, by telling the appeals court not to send the case back to Judge Tanya Chutkan for trial until the justices rule. You may be correct that there weren’t five votes to grant a stay. Doing so would have implied that a majority of the court thinks there’s merit to Trump’s claim. So, one way to look at it is for the court to have it both ways — being the final word on immunity, but without lending credence to Trump’s claim. Of course, there is, as you put it, some sleight of hand at play because he’s either entitled to a stay or he’s not. One way to look at it is for the court to have it both ways — being the final word on immunity, but without lending credence to Trump’s claim. To answer your other question, no dissents were noted in the order. And I wouldn’t expect them to be in an order granting review, as opposed to an order denying review. So that doesn’t mean that everyone agreed about every aspect of the order. Indeed, I sense that the overall action — including taking the case at all and hearing it in April, as opposed to sooner or even later than that — is the product of compromise. Whatever the motivation, it’s a win for Trump. Even if the court rules against him, its handling of the appeal may effectively grant him immunity by the further delay it yields in the federal election interference case. No matter what the court rules exactly, taking up the case and hearing it on this relatively leisurely schedule may let him retake the White House and crush the very case in which he’s seeking immunity. Have any questions or comments for me? I’d love to hear from you! Please email deadlinelegal@nbcuni.com for a chance to be featured in a future newsletter.