Supreme Court may have disguised 'bad news' for Trump as a temporary win: analysis

Former President Donald Trump was triumphant when the Supreme Court rejected special counsel Jack Smith's request to leapfrog the appellate court and immediately take up the former president's claim to presidential immunity, which has currently paused the 2020 election conspiracy case brought against him in by the special counsel D.C.

But not so fast, wrote Jessica Levinson for MSNBC on Wednesday — this could be a Pyrrhic victory for Trump.

"Recently, the Supreme Court declined Smith’s request to expedite resolving the question of whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in the federal election interference case. On the one hand, we can view the court’s decision as a win for Trump. The court’s unwillingness to jump into the fray and rule on this question before the D.C. Circuit hears and rules on the question could delay the case’s resolution. The longer this case drags on, the better it is for Trump," wrote Levinson.

ALSO READ: Jim Jordan and James Comer have a new judicial plan: Protect GOP megadonors at all costs

However, she continued, "on the other hand, the Supreme Court’s decision to wait for the D.C. Circuit to rule might actually be bad news for Trump. If, as many expect, the D.C. Circuit concludes that Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, then Trump will appeal to the high court. But the court doesn’t have to take the case. By declining to hear the case, the D.C. Circuit court’s decision would stand. The Supreme Court also could simply affirm the D.C. Circuit’s ruling without a full briefing and oral arguments. The court’s decision not to intervene now could actually indicate there’s really no reason for their involvement because this is not a close call."

The simple matter, Levinson wrote, is that the issue of presidential immunity is "not a tough one." The court may never have directly decided this question, but several cases, from Nixon v. United States to Clinton v. Jones, have found the president cannot be immune from civil action and enforcement — and the logic easily extends to criminal cases involving conduct not directly related to the president's official duties.

"Judicially created doctrines like presidential immunity serve a purpose," wrote Levinson Wednesday. "Presidents do not have normal jobs, and they are entitled to some level of protection. We want presidents to feel free to make decisions for the public good. But we also want them to know that if they break criminal laws, they will pay for it. Because these presidents are, presumably, still presiding over a nation that values the rule of law. The judges should follow their own doctrines, instead of perverting them for Trump’s gain."