Previous colleagues of Trump are seeking the Supreme Court's intervention as their former leader contemplates a return to the White House.
Trump's ex-chief of staff, Mark Meadows, is pushing for the justices to transfer the Georgia election manipulation case against him to federal court. Meanwhile, Trump's ex-trade advisor, Peter Navarro, wants the Supreme Court to meddle in a dispute over presidential records he stored on his private email.
On Monday, the Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit from Trump's former fixer, Michael Cohen, who accused his former boss of retaliating against him for promoting a tell-all book.
The various appeals, some more substantial than others, portray the unruly ensemble of characters who surrounded Trump during his presidency, many of whom are still in deep legal trouble. They might be hoping that the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority will offer leniency to those who, at one point, were close to a president who chose three of the nine justices.
However, despite Trump securing a significant legal triumph from that majority in July, which ruled that former presidents are entitled to extensive immunity from criminal prosecution, his former aides haven't experienced the same success.
"The court does not wish to engage with any of these cases," asserted Timothy Johnson, a professor of political science and law at the University of Minnesota. Johnson explained that the court's conservatives "are deeply invested in presidential power but not in executive branch power."
Navarro's Email Debate
The most recent appeal from a former Trump aide was added to the court's docket on Tuesday. Navarro, Trump's former trade advisor, has been embroiled in a multi-year conflict with the government over presidential records. The National Archives and Records Administration demanded that the records be returned, but Navarro has resisted.
In his Supreme Court appeal, Navarro described the case as "of paramount political significance" as it could determine how the government enforces the Presidential Records Act, a post-Nixon law that requires the preservation of presidential documents.
"The extent of government overreach by a weaponized justice system under Democratic rule is beyond belief," Navarro told CNN in a statement. "Somebody has to defend our Constitution, and it seems that duty has fallen on me."
However, lower courts have consistently supported the Justice Department in this battle. Navarro's attempt to persuade the Supreme Court to intervene is considered a longshot, in part due to Navarro's acknowledgment that "a substantial portion of the case is not yet ripe for review."
"These arguments lack merit under well-established precedent," a three-judge panel of federal appeals court judges in Washington – all appointed by Democratic presidents – wrote in April.
Earlier this year, Navarro attempted to enlist the justices to help him evade prison in a separate case involving his decision to disobey a subpoena from the January 6 congressional committee. Chief Justice John Roberts denied that request in March.
Potential Immunity for Meadows?
The most serious claim comes from Meadows, who is trying to relocate the Georgia election manipulation prosecution against him to federal court. If Meadows can convince the majority of the Supreme Court to support him, this would allow him to raise immunity arguments.
The Supreme Court is set to discuss Meadows' case in private in early November.
Meadows' claim is significant partly because it aligns with Trump's own immunity case. Trump's battle with special counsel Jack Smith is ongoing in federal court as US District Judge Tanya Chutkan weighs whether the steps he took to try and invalidate the 2020 election were official or political.
Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – bolstering conservative control of the bench.
Meadows argues that his actions were official, and he has enlisted the help of one of the Supreme Court bar's most renowned members, Paul Clement, to make this case. Clement, a former US solicitor general, has argued over 100 cases before the high court.
Meadows filed his appeal in July and submitted the final brief required before the court decides whether to hear his case on Tuesday.
A former North Carolina congressman, Meadows served as White House chief of staff late in Trump's term and was indicted in Fulton County on racketeering and other charges tied to phone calls and meetings in which Trump pressed state officials to alter the outcome of the 2020 election in Georgia. He has pleaded not guilty.
The Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the Georgia prosecution against Meadows should proceed in state court, concluding that former federal officials are not covered by the statute "removing" state cases against government officials to federal court. That court also ruled that "the events giving rise to this criminal action were not related to Meadows's official duties."
Meadows claims that this decision was "excessively and perilously mistaken" because it leaves former federal officials with minimal protection from local prosecutors filing politically motivated charges.
A United States District Court discarded Cohen's lawsuit seeking compensation, and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York validated this decision in January.
Trump's legal team labeled the case as entirely bereft of merit. The Department of Justice asserted that Cohen had failed to convincingly demonstrate that the legal quandaries present in this case emerge in other instances, consequently categorizing his claim as straying from the typical court proceedings.
The Supreme Court seemingly concurred with this perspective. It declined to engage with Cohen's case, leaving its verdict unvoiced.
Paula Reid from CNN helped compile this report.
In the context of ongoing legal battles involving Trump's former aides, professor Timothy Johnson stated that the Supreme Court's conservatives "are deeply invested in presidential power but not in executive branch power." (from the given text)
Navarro's Supreme Court appeal, in regard to his conflict with the government over presidential records, is considered a longshot due to Navarro's acknowledgment that "a substantial portion of the case is not yet ripe for review." (from the additional text)
