Has the Supreme Court gone rogue?

If the Supreme Court thinks former presidents have, or do not have, some or absolute immunity against criminal prosecution, why not just say so now? Why would it take months? Do they have something better to do? Are there other priorities on their to-do list? They may need some time for discussions. And clerks will have to type the decision up and proofread it. However, previous Courts were capable of making important decisions affecting presidents without dawdling.

In 1974, SCOTUS ruled that Nixon had no right to withhold the Oval Office tapes from Congress. It took them 99 days from April 16, when Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski served a subpoena for the tapes, until July 24, when they decided 8-0 to deny Nixon his claimed executive privilege to withhold evidence. Note: The 9th Justice, William Rehnquist, recused himself because of a conflict of interest (he had worked in Nixon’s White House). Are you paying attention, Clarence Thomas?

In 2000, SCOTUS took only three days to decide George W. Bush was the election winner. The Court had stayed the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to allow a recount on December 9. They heard oral arguments on December 11. They gave Bush his win on December 12.

In 2024, SCOTUS is lollygagging. Trump’s legal team floated the immunity claim in November 2023. Federal District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan denied it. And her words resonate today. In her opinion, she wrote:

“Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”