When the Supreme Court said it was vital to act quickly in vital presidential cases like Trump's immunity request

When former President Donald Trump's lawyers argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 25, 2024, they are going to claim he’s immune from prosecution for official actions during his time within the Oval Office. The claim arises from his federal allegations is attempting to overturn the outcomes of the 2020 presidential electionbut also can discuss with the costs he’s facing Hoarding secret documents after leaving office.

No Supreme Court has decided this query, nor has any of its rulings definitively said what is taken into account an official act and what not. Numerous commentators have shouted on the judges To determine the case quickly.

But for the judges and for me as Scholar of American politics and lawperhaps no commentator is as convincing as the Supreme Court itself – especially in a ruling from 50 years ago.

Back then, in a case related to the Deepening of the Watergate scandalThen-President Richard Nixon claimed that each one conversations of a president during his term of office were confidential and couldn’t be subpoenaed as evidence by a court, even in the event that they contained information relevant to a criminal prosecution.

In 1974, the Supreme Court accepted, heard and decided Nixon's lawsuit inside two months, with Chief Justice Warren Burger stating that it had done so.because they were matters of urgent public importance.”

So far, the court has been slower to act on Trump's case, but could still take heed to its own urgent words from the past.

A slowly unfolding investigation

By 1974, the Watergate scandal had dragged on for nearly two years, tearing the country apart. The trigger was a break-in on the Democratic Party headquarters within the Watergate complex in Washington in May 1972 and mounting evidence of this Nixon had orchestrated a cover-up.

In the summer of 1973, the highly publicized Senate hearings on Watergate made public the existence of Taped recordings of conversations within the Oval Office. Access to the tapes became crucial to the establishment what Nixon knew in regards to the break-in and when he knew it.

In November 1973 Political pressure forced Nixon to release seven tapes to Judge John Sirica, who presided over a federal grand jury that investigated Watergate. Leon Jaworski, whom Nixon appointed as a special prosecutor, used these tapes Securing indictments against seven of Nixon's top aides for his or her efforts to cover up the break-in. The indictments were published on March 1, 1974 – albeit in secret. Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

A rapid series of court decisions

Based on evidence from transcripts of White House visits, Jaworski identified 64 additional tapes that likely contained relevant conversations and persuaded Sirica to subpoena them. Nixon's team appealed to the US Court of Appeals. On May 24, 1974, Jaworski filed suit Petition for certiorari before judgmentA rarely used legal mechanism urged the Supreme Court to intervene before the appeals court heard the case.

On May 31, six justices, including two Nixon appointees, granted Jaworski's request and scheduled oral arguments for July 8. One judge, William Rehnquist, declined to serve because he had worked in Nixon's Justice Department before his appointment to the court.

After oral hearing All eight justices rejected Nixon's claim of absolute executive privilege. They concluded that there was probable cause that the subpoenaed tapes were relevant to a criminal case, found no evidence that they might endanger national security, and guaranteed them that a judge would review them confidentially before doing in order that they reveal their content.

The Burger Court was filled with big egos and little rivalries. Nevertheless, all seven of his non-removed assessors quickly agreed with the boss's opinion, which was published on July twenty fourth. No further concurring opinions clouded the legal situation.

Nixon had hoped that a divided court or an unclear ruling would allow further delay. But a unanimous ruling from the chief justice he appointed convinced him to comply. “The problem wasn’t just that we had lost,” he wrote in his memoirs, “but we had lost so decisively.”

Two days after the court's decision, on July 26, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment against Nixon. One of a very powerful pieces of evidence was certainly one of the recordings that the Supreme Court had ordered released. Called “smoking gun“Nixon was recorded instructing his chief of staff to instruct the CIA to prevent the FBI from investigating the break-in. On August 8, Nixon announced to the nation that he would do so resign the following day.

The Supreme Court had acted quickly and brought up the case on the earliest opportunity. That happened on May thirty first, and the hearing took place 38 days later, on July eighth. The court issued its decision 16 days later, on July 24. And just over two weeks later, Nixon was now not president.

Trump's delays

As the events of the Trump case unfolded in 2023, there have been parallels to the Nixon situation. As District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan Rejection of Trump's immunity claim was appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2023, Special Counsel Jack Smith petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari before the decision.

The Supreme Court operated during John Roberts' time as Chief Justice often comply with these requests. But within the Trump case, it's the judges rejected thisoffers no explanation.

The appeal court only made its decision on February 6, 2024 He vigorously rejected Trump's claim to immunity. Smith again asked the Supreme Court to accomplish that Move the case quickly – And On February 28, the justices agreed to a review.

They scheduled oral arguments for 58 days later, on April 25. That's already more time than between adoption and the Supreme Court's decision in 1974. And 1974 was not a presidential election yr.

The importance of speed

I’m not the just one who believes the Trump case is of comparable – if not greater – importance to democracy.

The arguments in each of those cases challenge the principles of the limited government system created by the Founding Fathers Control and balancing of the manager, legislative and judicial branches.

It is just not yet clear when the Roberts court will rule, but in 1974 the justices were grateful “the public importance of the problems presented and the need for their rapid solution”.