Legal Analyst Points to 'Key Question' About Donald Trump's Court Cases

Ahead of oral arguments in Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim at the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals, legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance pointed to one “key question” in the former president’s court cases on Sunday.

Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, awaits an appeals court ruling on whether he has presidential immunity protection in his election interference case in Washington, D.C. The argument, however, is expected to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Special counsel Jack Smith has led the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation, accusing Trump of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election that led to the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. The former president, without any evidence, claimed that the election was stolen from him via widespread voter fraud.

In August 2023, Trump was indicted on four counts by the DOJ in relation to the riot, including conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. Trump has pled not guilty and has said that the case against him is politically motivated.

Meanwhile, the former president has also argued presidential immunity would shield him from being tried for these charges, though critics say he was not acting in his official capacity at the time.

2024 Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump speaks to guests during a rally on Saturday in Clinton, Iowa. Ahead of oral arguments in his presidential immunity claim at the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals, legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance pointed to one “key question” in the former president’s court cases on Sunday.
Scott Olson/Getty Images

While appearing on MSNBC’s The Katie Phang Show on Sunday, Vance, a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama during the Obama administration, was asked about the speed at which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has moved in ruling on Trump’s presidential immunity claim.

“Why is it that we haven’t seen more speed from the Supreme Court?” host Katie Phang asked.

In response, Vance pointed out that despite Trump’s strategy of delay with some judges, she is seeing that both the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals are hopeful in terms of moving the process forward.

“So I think this is the key question because Trump’s overall strategy is one of delay, get everything past the election, hope that you win and you can resolve everything from the oval office in your favor. And I think it’s been a little baffling to watch some of the judges like Aileen Cannon in the Florida Mar-a-Lago related criminal prosecution, where she has been playing slow ball trying to keep that case from going anywhere,” Vance said.

Cannon is a U.S. district judge based in Florida and was appointed by Trump in 2020. She is now presiding over the DOJ’s case against the former president regarding his alleged mishandling of classified documents stored at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort residence, after leaving the White House. The former president has maintained his innocence in the case.

Vance continued on Sunday: “But what we are seeing now in Washington is very hopeful, to people who aren’t lawyers I think the speed at which courts move is mystifying, it’s extremely slow. What we’ve seen in these last couple of weeks has been lightning speed out of both of these courts.”

Newsweek has reached out to Trump via email for comment.

Trump’s lawyers are scheduled to make oral arguments surrounding his presidential immunity claim before a three-judge panel of the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday.

Vance’s comments come after she previously pointed out “one additional wrinkle” in Smith’s December motion, which he filed in hopes of fast-tracking arguments, that could accelerate the process for the Supreme Court to eventually hear and make a ruling on the question of presidential immunity.

“There’s one additional wrinkle we should mention. In Jack Smith’s motion here, he asked the Supreme Court to consider if they would not hear the case directly, if they wanted to go to the Court of Appeals, he asked them to consider taking the case immediately following the Court of Appeals decision without waiting for en banc and the usual time for certiorari. The Supreme Court has been silent so far on that request so we don’t know what they are thinking,” Vance said at the time.