Connect with us

Politics

Column: Without even ruling on Trump's immunity claim, the Supreme Court handed him a huge victory

Published

on

Column: Without even ruling on Trump's immunity claim, the Supreme Court handed him a huge victory

Given the Supreme Court’s possible responses to Donald Trump’s appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s denial of his claim of immunity from prosecution, the justices’ decision Wednesday has to be counted as a gift to the former president. That’s because the court came through for him on the most important axis: time.

The court’s fairly Delphic order retains a stay on the case pending its consideration of the merits, with oral arguments scheduled for the week of April 22. Doing the math, that means the all-important election interference trial in U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s Washington courtroom will not begin for at least six months or so, around late August.

At best, that means there is no more margin for error if the case is to go forward this year. And even at the earliest possible date that it could proceed, the country will be in the homestretch of a presidential campaign that the trial would substantially distort. That’s a potential problem not just for Trump but also for the American people.

And of course the trial may not begin before the November election, in which a Trump victory over President Biden would completely upend the legal and political landscape.

That’s because the trial judge can’t really abridge the amount of time that remained in the pretrial process before Trump’s appeal stopped the clock. Trump would scream that the court is violating his due-process rights if Chutkan gave the president less time to prepare his defense.

Advertisement

And while the Supreme Court has scheduled a fairly prompt consideration of the appeal, it’s far from the fastest they’ve ordered. Trump’s team has a full three weeks before their brief on the merits is due, and the oral argument is almost two months away.

The court’s consideration of this motion, moreover, was hardly warp speed for a case of this importance and exigency. The justices took 13 days to decide how they would handle the appeal. Again, fast — but I’ve seen faster.

In fact, the time it took had many court watchers surmising that one of the justices must be writing a dissent. But Wednesday’s order was short, bland and without dissent. (That’s not to say it was unanimous — just that no judge in the minority opted to write in opposition to the decision to take the case, which would have been unusual.)

On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s decision does not ultimately augur a reversal of the D.C. Circuit’s resounding rejection of Trump’s immunity argument. My strong sense is that the justices won’t uphold Trump’s far-reaching and fundamentally anti-constitutional claim of a wholly immune president. The opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — joined by Republican and Democratic appointees alike — should lay that claim to rest.

More likely than finding fault with the circuit court, the justices, probably beginning with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., decided the issue is of sufficient magnitude that they couldn’t let the final decision, however persuasive, come from a lower court. Fundamental questions of executive power simply fall within the Supreme Court’s job description.

Advertisement

One possible clue to the court’s thinking is the order’s formulation of the question presented: “Whether — and if so, to what extent — a former president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

Throughout the case, Trump has argued that the conduct at issue fell within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. This depends on construing his encouragement of the Jan. 6, 2021, rioters as mere political speech.

His prospects for prevailing on that ground are negligible. In fact, several other courts have been hostile to similar arguments from Trump. For example, also on Wednesday, an Illinois court became the latest to determine that he engaged in insurrection and is therefore disqualified from the presidency under the 14th Amendment.

So even if the Supreme Court were to find some version of presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts, it wouldn’t necessarily save Trump if his conduct fell outside his responsibilities.

Again, though, Trump’s fortunes have to be measured by the time involved as well as the merits. And a pretrial back-and-forth over whether his conduct fell within his duties could take up even more time.

Advertisement

In the long run, therefore, the court’s decision probably won’t excuse Trump from accountability for his traitorous conduct on the merits. His outlandish claim of absolute presidential immunity will almost certainly fail, and even a recognition of limited immunity for official acts will not keep him from facing justice.

But that’s in the long run. For now, Trump is likely pleased with a result that again delays justice and, if his political gamble on a return to the White House pays off, will allow him to escape it altogether.

Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast. @harrylitman

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Steve Hilton Holds Slim Early Lead in California Governor’s Race

Published

on

Video: Steve Hilton Holds Slim Early Lead in California Governor’s Race

new video loaded: Steve Hilton Holds Slim Early Lead in California Governor’s Race

transcript

transcript

Steve Hilton Holds Slim Early Lead in California Governor’s Race

Steve Hilton, a Republican and former Fox News host, held a narrow lead in early votes over two Democratic opponents in California’s nonpartisan primary for governor. The top two candidates will advance to the general election in November.

“Change is coming to California, and it’s long overdue. I want to just say something from my heart to every single person who’s voted for me. We’re not — We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good.” [cheers] “Tonight, the people of the great state of California, in the greatest nation on earth, have spoken. [cheers] Loudly and proudly. [cheers] And while I take nothing for granted, there are lots of ballots left to be counted, it appears that we are on track to advance to November.” [cheers] “It might take some time to figure out where this is going. We’re going to wait until every ballot is counted. We’re going to give democracy a time to work, and we know we finished really strong.” [cheers]

Advertisement
Steve Hilton, a Republican and former Fox News host, held a narrow lead in early votes over two Democratic opponents in California’s nonpartisan primary for governor. The top two candidates will advance to the general election in November.

By Axel Boada

June 3, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Spencer Pratt surges to runoff in LA mayor’s race after angry voters send message to Karen Bass

Published

on

Spencer Pratt surges to runoff in LA mayor’s race after angry voters send message to Karen Bass

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Reality television personality Spencer Pratt appears on track to clear a key hurdle in Los Angeles’ mayoral race as he seeks to unseat incumbent Mayor Karen Bass in November.

Bass, who has led the city since 2022 amid a turbulent stretch rocked by her response to wildfires, advanced to a runoff after failing to secure a majority of the vote in Tuesday’s primary election. With no candidate surpassing the 50% threshold, the top two finishers will face off in a November runoff.

The anticipated runoff is a symbolic blow to Bass, who was endorsed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., and former Vice President Kamala Harris and has spent decades serving California in a series of elected Democratic offices.

Pratt, a first-time candidate known for the MTV reality show “The Hills,” was running in second place as of Wednesday morning.

Advertisement

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attends the Women for Bass Phone bank event in the Baldwin Hills area of Los Angeles on June 1, 2026. (Louise Barnsley/Splash for Fox News Digital)

REALITY TV STAR SPENCER PRATT TESTS LA VOTERS’ APPETITE FOR POLITICAL OUTSIDER

“Obviously, God wanted five more months of me exposing the failures of our mayor,” Pratt gloated to reporters as the returns came in Tuesday evening. 

Pratt has relentlessly hammered Bass on issues that have long plagued the city, including fire recovery, street homelessness and crime. The insurgent candidate holds Bass personally responsible for devastating wildfires that destroyed more than 18,000 structures in the city, including his Pacific Palisades home. 

Pratt’s surge appears to have shut out Los Angeles City Council member Nithya Raman, a former ally of Bass who challenged the incumbent from the left and was once viewed as a threat to her bid for a second term. Raman is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and has argued for steering the city in a more progressive direction.

Advertisement

Raman has not yet conceded despite running well behind Bass and Pratt as of Wednesday morning.

Pratt, a registered Republican, faces an uphill battle to defeat Bass in November if he advances to the runoff election.

Less than 20% of voters in the heavily Democratic city identify with the GOP, though Los Angeles’ mayoral contest is officially nonpartisan. 

Media personality and independent candidate Spencer Pratt, left, pictured alongside LA mayor Karen Bass, right. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images; Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

KAREN BASS GRILLED OVER BROKEN HOMELESSNESS PROMISE, BLAMES BUREAUCRACY FOR SLOWED PROGRESS

Advertisement

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who represents a San Diego-anchored seat, told Fox News Digital that Pratt has won a following in the mayoral contest due to widespread voter discontent with Bass’ leadership.

“He’s catching fire among ardent historic Democrat voters because Karen Bass has been so ineffective,” Issa said in an interview. “And every time she opens her mouth, she’s talking about more of the same to people who have seen their streets, both crime-ridden and in fact … ineffectively managed.” 

Bass, conversely, argues that her leadership is leading Los Angeles in the right direction.

“Los Angeles is at a turning point. After decades of rising homelessness, under-built housing and a shrinking police force, it’s Mayor Karen Bass who finally stepped up to change how City Hall works,” Bass’s website reads.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman appears likely to finish in third place, keeping her out of the November runoff. (Eric Thayer/Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Homelessness is down, more housing is being built, and the LAPD is hiring new officers,” it also claims.

Fox News Digital’s Leo Briceno contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

Politics

Early returns indicate L.A. County voters have doubts about healthcare sales tax measure

Published

on

Early returns indicate L.A. County voters have doubts about healthcare sales tax measure

Los Angeles County’s half-cent sales tax to fund healthcare services was trailing Tuesday, with early returns showing a majority of voters rejecting the measure.

The tax — a half-penny of every dollar spent in the county — is meant to prop up local hospitals and clinics that are hemorrhaging funding after recent federal cuts.

The sales tax, which needs a simple majority to pass, would take effect Oct. 1 and last five years. Officials say it would pull in $1 billion annually to help plug the budget holes hitting local hospitals and clinics.

L.A. County health officials anticipate the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Trump last summer, will slash more than $2 billion from the county’s health services budget within the next three years. Due to eligibility changes, the county will no longer be able to get reimbursements for many Californians who have lost Medi-Cal.

Advertisement

The measure was championed by a coalition of healthcare advocates called Restore Healthcare for Angelenos who warned that mass layoffs and emergency room closures could be imminent if new funding didn’t come fast. The Department of Public Health recently closed seven clinics — a grim sign, supporters said, of service cuts to come.

Voters haven’t rejected a sales tax hike since 2012, when a transportation measure fell just short with 66.1% support. It needed 66.7% to pass.

A majority of county supervisors had supported the new tax proposal, voting 4 to 1 this February to put it on the ballot. But the measure faced significant opposition from local cities, with opponents arguing the sales tax hike would unfairly burden the poorest county residents and encourage people to spend their dollars across the county line.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger, the board’s lone opponent of the tax, said she was concerned it was a “general” tax, meaning the money wouldn’t be earmarked for healthcare costs. Instead, she argued, politicians would have final say over how the money gets spent.

The supervisors have created a plan for spending the tax money, with the largest chunk of the money meant to cover the costs for patients without insurance. The measure also asked voters to sign off on a nine-member oversight committee.

Advertisement

The county currently has a base sales tax rate of 9.75%, and cities impose local taxes on top of that.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending