Thomas and Gorsuch wanted to delay Immunity ruling until after November.

Behind the scenes, the chief justice molded three momentous Jan. 6 and election cases that helped determine the former president’s fate.

Last February, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sent his eight Supreme Court colleagues a confidential memo that radiated frustration and certainty.
Former President Donald J. Trump, seeking to retake the White House, had made a bold, last-ditch appeal to the justices. He wanted them to block his fast-approaching criminal trial on charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election, arguing that he was protected by presidential immunity. Whatever move the court made could have lasting consequences for the next election, the scope of presidential power and the court’s own battered reputation.
The chief justice’s Feb. 22 memo, jump-starting the justices’ formal discussion on whether to hear the case, offered a scathing critique of a lower-court decision and a startling preview of how the high court would later rule, according to several people from the court who saw the document.
The chief justice tore into the appellate court opinion greenlighting Mr. Trump’s trial, calling it inadequate and poorly reasoned. On one key point, he complained, the lower court judges “failed to grapple with the most difficult questions altogether.” He wrote not only that the Supreme Court should take the case — which would stall the trial — but also how the justices should decide it.
“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently” from the appeals court, he wrote. In other words: grant Mr. Trump greater protection from prosecution.
In a momentous trio of Jan. 6-related cases last term, the court found itself more entangled in presidential politics than at any time since the 2000 election, even as it was contending with its own controversies related to that day. The chief justice responded by deploying his authority to steer rulings that benefited Mr. Trump, according to a New York Times examination that uncovered extensive new information about the court’s decision making.

MORE:
https://archive.is/G7rfQ#selection-841.0-869.449

Uh-oh! It looks like you're using an ad blocker.

Our website relies on ads and the generous support of readers like you to keep delivering free, high-quality content. Right now, we are facing serious funding challenges and we need your help more than ever. Disable your ad blocker and this message will vanish. You can also sign up for a membership to enjoy an ad-free experience while supporting our work: https://citizenwatchreport.com/plans/subscriptions/ Your support helps us stay independent, continue our work, and keep content free for everyone. We truly appreciate your understanding and thank you for standing with us.