The Supreme Court, giving itself powerful control over the timing of federal criminal trials of former President Donald Trump, agreed on Wednesday to rule on his claim that he has total legal immunity to prosecution.

The Court did put its review on a faster-than-usual schedule, but the timetable of reaching a final decision may as a practical reality delay any trial of Trump until after his nomination for the presidency, which could occur in mid-July, and maybe even after this year’s election on November 5.

The one-page order was a vivid illustration of the awesome authority of the Court when it is interpreting the Constitution, and was a clear reminder of how the Court used that power to actually settle the presidential election a quarter-century ago, in the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, putting George W. Bush in the White House.

Wednesday’s action came in an unsigned order involving criminal charges accusing Trump of attempting to stay in office after his 2020 defeat, but it could also affect his federal prosecution for illegally handling classified documents at his Florida beach club, because he is claiming immunity there, too.

Moreover, his legal team is pressing the immunity argument against a coming trial in state court in Georgia, another case that is growing out of his attempt to remain President after defeat.  None of those three trials has a starting date yet, so each may be delayed while the Court carries out its review.

The first trial of Trump on any criminal charge is scheduled to begin on March 25 in a state court in New York City.  That, too, is basically an election-interference case because Trump is accused of paying money to squelch potential publicity during the 2020 election season to cover up a sex scandal with a porn star.  The immunity claim he is making in the other three cases would not be likely in that New York case because the alleged incident occurred before he was President and his claim of immunity is tied directly to actions in office.

Trump’s claim that all of the actions he is accused of taking related to the 2020 election occurred while he was in office and were within the scope of his duties as President.  The judge assigned to try that case, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, has rejected that claim, and a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court did, too.

The former President has not yet filed an appeal of that question at the Supreme Court, but on February 12 his lawyers did ask the Justices to put the issue on hold until he could pursue a formal appeal.  All of the legal briefs on that were filed within three days, but the Court still took just under two weeks to craft its response, in the Wednesday order.

That order did these things:

• It treated the delay request as an appeal (petition for review), and granted review.
• It wrote its own constitutional question that will be reviewed, focusing on whether a former President is immune to criminal charges for actions that the ex-President claimed were official.
• It ordered the federal appeals court to do nothing to implement its ruling against immunity until the Supreme Court issues a final decision. That was a bit of an institutional insult since the appeals court had already said it would not do so until the Justices had ruled.
• It gave lawyers until April 15 – more than six weeks – to complete the filing of legal briefs, and said it would hold a hearing in the week of April 22. That is the final week it is scheduled to hold hearings in its current term.
• It stressed that its actions Wednesday are not to be understood as to how it will rule on the immunity claim.

Taken all together, the specifics of the Court order were a major victory for Trump and his legal team, because they have been using every legal tactic that would help them delay his trials, hoping that he could win the nomination and maybe even win the Presidency before being convicted.  They have complained repeatedly that all of the criminal cases are only designed to thwart his candidacy.

If the Court moves very rapidly to decide the immunity issue after the late April hearing, it could decide the case before recessing for the summer – likely in early July.  The Republican nomination for the Presidency is expected to be settled at the GOP convention in July.

Federal prosecutors have said they expect the trial of the 2020 election case to take about three months, but Judge Chutkan has indicated that, in fairness, she may not be able to start that trial without giving Trump’s team about two months to complete preparations.

Simply by operation of the calendar of this case, the likelihood that it will start before election day in November seems problematic.  A highly respected retired federal appeals court judge and a fervent critic of Trump, J. Michael Luttig, said on television Wednesday that he did not expect that trial to open before the November election.

Recent polling of voters as they went to the polls in presidential primary elections have indicated a sizable number of voters would be influenced in their reaction to Trump if he were convicted before election day.

If Trump is convicted any time before or after election day, he could still take office next January if he winds election even if he had been found guilty.  It is not a constitutional qualification that a President have no criminal conviction in the record.

The Court’s action on Wednesday would have taken the votes of four Justices to grant review and on a fast-track schedule.  It will take the votes of at least five to make a final decision.  If the Justices work toward a final decision, either way, and one or more of them dissents, that could stretch out the time to rule.

If the Court decides the case in something less than a final ruling on the immunity question, it could send the case back to lower courts for another look.  That would be another significant gain for Trump and his lawyers.

The Court has put on an expedited schedule another constitutional case involving Trump and the Presidency, a case testing whether his actions related to overturning the 2020 election disqualify him from being on the ballot as a candidate under a 14^th Amendment anti-insurrection clause.  The Court, however, heard that case 20 days ago, and still has given no sign of when it will rule.  (When it decided the 2020 case, Bush v. Gore, it issued its final ruling the day after a hearing, and that was the second ruling in that case – all occurring within 36 days after the election.)

It is perhaps only a coincidence, but the Court will actually be hearing two cases affecting Trump during its April sitting – the case dealt with Wednesday, and a separate case set for hearing on April 16 (Fischer v. United States) involving the validity of prosecuting an individual for taking part in the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol under a law that makes it a crime to obstruct an official government proceeding.  Two of the four charges against Trump are based on that same law.

It is possible that that case, too, could only be decided by the end of June, perhaps adding to the complications of putting Trump on trial for the January 6 charges.