I don’t know if you’re aware of this, Dear Reader, but there was a significant Supreme Court ruling last week, and former President Donald Trump’s legal team is now citing it in his defense in several cases. The case? Trump v. United States. 

Can you believe the nerve of these people? Citing a case involving their client, directly on point as to defenses he’s raised in the cavalcade of politically motivated cases brought against him?!

If your sarcasm meter is pegging, congratulations — it’s functioning properly. I’m employing it here in response to this headline from The Hill: “Trump latches on to Supreme Court immunity ruling in documents case.” 

This from the same publication that recently framed the Florida prosecution of the former president as “dragging.” (Here’s where I note that a federal criminal case filed 13 months ago involving a former president and massively complicated issues involving the evidentiary handling of classified material and numerous defenses can hardly be said to be languishing.) 

My aim here isn’t primarily to knock that publication — it’s often a source of useful information — but simply to note (and lightly mock) the blatant bias in the framing: The case(s) against Trump must be hurried along and it’s gauche of him to be relying on a Supreme Court case about him/his prior office.

So what is it that has this not-a-fan-of-Trump outlet griping? Some of the latest filings in said Florida case. 

In court papers filed Friday, Trump asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to halt most proceedings in the case until she resolves Trump’s immunity defense. His lawyers proposed a written briefing schedule that extends through early September, meaning a ruling wouldn’t come until at least the fall. 

The request marks the latest fallout from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on Monday that carves out at least presumptive criminal immunity for former presidents’ official acts while in office.  

Special counsel Jack Smith previously contended he has not charged Trump over any official acts in the documents case, but Smith’s team now must grapple with the Supreme Court’s broad shield, which further specifies that official acts cannot come in as evidence either.

As Becca Lower reported on Saturday, Judge Aileen Cannon has already ruled on Trump’s request — in part — and granted a brief delay in the proceedings. 

The effect of Cannon’s latest ruling is to temporarily stay some of the near-term deadlines for various disclosures and filings in the case, though she reserved ruling on Trump’s request for additional briefing on the presidential immunity issue pending Special Counsel Jack Smith’s response to the request. 

What’s added fun (if you’re the sort that finds legal wrangling and snarky wars of words between attorneys entertaining) is some of the language in the recent pleadings filed. 

From Trump’s Motion for Supplemental Briefing on Presidential Immunity and a Partial Stay:

These efforts are so extreme and fanatical that on July 2, 2024, in an apparent response to President Biden’s exceedingly weak debate performance on June 27, government officials leaked to the Washington Post Smith’s misguided plans to continue to prosecute President Trump even as the President-elect. Those leaks were a blatant violation of DOJ policy and practice, with no apparent consequences to those responsible for the malfeasance, that has obvious relevance to the Court’s Appointments Clause inquiries regarding the unchecked discretion and lack of oversight enjoyed by the Smith as he seeks to subvert the upcoming election. Collectively, these circumstances call for heightened caution while the Court addresses threshold issues regarding Smith’s lack of authority to drive this prosecution forward on the dangerous and reckless course he has repeatedly sought to foist upon the Court.

Trump’s team also noted Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in the immunity ruling regarding the Appointments Clause issue as to Smith in that motion (just in case Judge Cannon wasn’t already aware of it — wink). 

Trump’s lawyers also referenced the Thomas concurrence in their Notice of Supplemental Authority, following their assertion regarding the impact of the ruling on Smith’s prosecution:

But Trump’s team reserved perhaps their saltiest snark for his Response in Further Opposition to the Motion for a Gag Order by the Special Counsel’s Office, writing:

…

…

One of the footnotes cited by Trump’s lawyers in that response references the totally unhinged recent comments of actress Lea DeLaria in response to the immunity ruling:

And then comes the coup de grâce:

How Judge Cannon ultimately rules on the numerous weighty issues before her remains to be seen, of course. But my hat’s off to Trump’s legal team for taking the words of Joe Biden and his Justice Department and turning them right back around on them.