The majority’s decision in Trump v. U.S. ​means Trump’s trial for trying to ​overturn the 2020 Election won’t ​conclude before the 2024 Election…if ​there’s ever a trial at all.

SOTOMAYOR

KAGAN

JACKSON

The Supreme Court can move quickly when it wants to. It took the Supreme Court 16 days after oral argument to rule in United States v. Nixon, 1 day after oral argument in Bush v. Gore, and 25 days after oral argument earlier this year to aid Trump in the Colorado ballot case.

NOW IT'S UP TO WE, THE PEOPLE.

#Justice

CantWait

Polling Consistently shows that a MAJORITY of AMericans want this trial to conclude before election day.

The

Links

Liz Cheney in the New York Times: “It cannot be that a president of the United ​States can attempt to steal an election and seize power, but our justice system is incapable ​of bringing him to trial before the next election four years later.”

Norman L. Eisen, Matthew A. Seligman, and Joshua Kolb at Just Security:

Analysis of alternative timelines for when Trump’s J6 Trial can reach a verdict.

Prof. Kate Shaw in the New York Times:

"[F]or the Supreme Court to fulfill its central role in our constitutional system, it must ​dispose of Mr. Trump’s arguments quickly — critically allowing for fully informed ​democratic participation in the November presidential election."

Michael Podhorzer in Weekend Reading

The Court is more than capable of making quick rulings on urgent cases. Thus, the only ​reason voters might not hear a verdict before they cast a ballot is because the six ​Federalist Society-approved Supreme Court justices (including three that Trump himself ​appointed) don’t want them to.

Prof. Sean Wilentz in New York Review of Books:

“This imbroglio is a case study in how dilatory courts can aid crafty lawyers as they use ​legal doubletalk to delay proceedings. But this time, the aid has come from the highest ​court in the land.”

Prof. Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissman in The Atlantic:

“The justices should press Trump’s counsel on what possible legitimate reason he has to ​oppose a speedy resolution of the appeal. And then they should rule with dispatch because ​there is still time, albeit barely, to vindicate the public’s right to a speedy trial.”

Michael Waldman at the Brennan Center for Justice:

"Voters have a right to know if they are being asked to elect someone who is guilty of the ​most serious crimes that a president could commit against democracy itself."

Prof. Melissa Murray and Andrew Weissman in the New York Times: "Before ​Election Day 2024, if at all possible, voters should know if the facts of a case establish ​that one of the candidates engaged in an elaborate election-interference scheme in ​2020."

Common Cause’s Amicus Brief:

“[T]his Court is at serious risk of being perceived as attempting to influence the 2024 ​election in favor of Mr. Trump. It should do everything possible now to avoid that ​impression, which would be highly detrimental to this Court’s reputation for neutrality ​and fairness. Time is of the essence.”

Leadership Now Project’s Amicus Brief:

“Given the paramount public importance of this case in the context of the 2024 ​presidential election, a swift decision by the Court on narrow grounds is essential to ​avoid further delay in this case.”