Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.) introduced a resolution Friday urging the Supreme Court to “intervene” in the hush money case against former President Donald Trump before the 2024 election — a move that experts say is a political stunt that faces significant legal obstacles.
Citing the “All Writs Act,” by which the court “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law,” the resolution calls on SCOTUS to intervene in the case “with all deliberate speed and possible urgency.”
The resolution argues for the court’s intervention on the basis that Americans need to make “informed decisions” in the upcoming election. It also echoes Trump’s oft-used complaint that the trial — and ultimately conviction — stemmed from the “politically motivated prosecution by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.”
Last month, Trump was found guilty on all 34 charges of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels — which prompted an outcry from some conservatives and Trump loyalists. The former president — the first to become a convicted felon — faces sentencing on July 11.
The resolution is likely to wind up being symbolic in nature because of a series of formidable legal hurdles it faces.
One major obstacle is that the Supreme Court generally acts on disputes brought to it by the parties to a case. In this instance, that would be Trump or Bragg’s office. Neither has made any application or petition for the justices’ involvement at this point.
In addition, under longstanding precedents, federal courts generally do not intervene midstream in state court cases or appeals.
Trump could try to take his case to the Supreme Court at some juncture, but the justices usually won’t get involved until a defendant has exhausted all appeals at the state level, typically by asking the state’s highest court for relief. With Trump’s sentencing scheduled for next month, he hasn’t yet appealed his 34 felony convictions in the New York system — a step that typically comes after sentencing is complete.
“Trump, like all other defendants, has the right to appeal once he is sentenced,” Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, told POLITICO. “That is the proper mechanism for him to challenge his conviction. The ‘All Writs Act’ is not intended to be used for the purpose of interfering with ongoing criminal proceedings in the states.”
Levenson added that she thinks the Supreme Court won’t intervene in the case and that Rep. Timmons’ resolution “is for political and publicity purposes and will not have any legal impact.”
Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.
Source Agencies
