Thread by @dilanesper

This "the courts are slow-walking Trump's immunity claim" narrative (for the most part coming from non-lawyers who don't understand anything about the system) is truly pissing me off. So here's the real story. 1/

President Trump was indicted last August. Notably that's the biggest slow walk of all- an August 2023 indictment for a January 2021 alleged crime, and 10 months after Jack Smith was appointed. But Smith is a saint among men and "on our team", so he cannot be criticized. 2/

President Trump's motion to dismiss was filed on September 29, less than TWO MONTHS after the case commenced. Judge Chutkan, who, again, gets no criticism because she's on the right "team", decided it on December 1, a two month delay. 3/

Nonetheless, to be clear, Judge Chutkan deserves no criticism for this. Two months from filing to decision on a motion to dismiss in federal court is VERY FAST. Usually you are looking at six months or more. This case was expedited. 4/

Donald Trump had a right, under law, to appeal this ruling to the Court of Appeals and to stay the trial court proceedings while he did it. You may not like this rule, but it applies to ANYONE raising an immunity defense, not just Donald Trump. 5/

President Trump took his appeal and the court concluded briefing in JUST ONE MONTH, and then held oral argument on January 9 and decided the case February 6. This is LIGHTNING FAST. Most CoA cases take about a year to a year and half between commencement and conclusion. 6/

Further, the DC Circuit itself broke a norm to speed up the case further, and NOBODY criticized it for breaking this norm. It's a technical issue, but the "mandate" is the date on which a court of appeals judgment goes into effect. 7/

In a normal case, you get 15 days to petition the court to rehear the case (in case some error was made) or to suggest that the full court, rather than a 3 judge panel, hear the case, and then the decision takes effect 7 days after that. 8/

The DC Circuit panel took those 22 days away from President Trump. It did so even though we have no idea if the full DC Circuit actually might have wanted to hear the case. Doesn't matter, the panel said, we won't let you. The decision takes effect immediately. 9/

So President Trump was forced to file immediately for US Supreme Court review. Even here, his time was cut. Normally you get 3 months to file a petition to the Supreme Court. The DC Circuit gave President Trump A WEEK. Again, enormous speed. 10/

President Trump filed his application for SCOTUS to take the case on February 12. SCOTUS decided within just SIXTEEN DAYS to grant the application.

And then SCOTUS set a HIGHLY expedited briefing schedule. 11/

Normally, a case that is taken by the Supreme Court on February 28 will be briefed through the spring and summer, heard in October when the new term starts, and decided the following January or so. 12/

But SCOTUS held all briefing will be done by APRIL and it will be orally argued the week of 4/22. That sets this up for decision in early May. A motion that was filed in September goes through all three levels of the federal court system and gets decided by May. That's FAST! 13/

Want to know what regular order looks like? Well, Judge Chutkan takes 6 months to rule on the motion to dismiss, and rules on it the last week of March 2024. The DC Circuit appeal takes a year and is decided in March 2025. Throw on another month for the en banc denial. 14/

Trump petitions for certiorari in Spring 2025 and his petition is granted and the case is briefed in the summer and early fall and is argued in November 2025. It is decided in March 2026. That's what regular order is. This case has been expedited by ALMOST 2 YEARS TOTAL. 15/

And if you want to argue that a 5/24 decision is still too late, well, SCOTUS only controls the last 3 months of that delay. The rest of it? Blame the liberal Judge Chutkan and DC Circuit and ESPECIALLY the DOJ, who DIDN'T BRING THIS CASE FOR 2 1/2 YEARS! 16/

Seriously the court system took almost 2 years off a case that DOJ took 2 1/2 years to bring. The Supreme Court itself took 8 months off of the case. And we're blaming the Supreme Court? This is utterly wrong. 17/

The reality is once the DOJ decided it would take 2 1/2 years to bring January 6 charges, this goose was cooked. And that is the case even though the federal courts, including SCOTUS, tried to pull it out of the oven quicker at the end. End/

@MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein 2. SCOTUS taking the case in December would have been extraordinary. SCOTUS rarely jumps in before a Court of Appeals has acted, and Jack Smith's argument that they should have was actually a lot weaker than Trump's immunity argument. It was never happening.

@MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein 3. Sat for weeks? They decided the cert petition 16 days after receiving it, which again is lightning fast by SCOTUS standards.

@MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein (It allowed Justice Jackson to sit on the affirmative action case.)

Also at least 6 cert before judgment cases were grant vacate and remand cases where court corrected some procedural error, not merits cases.

@MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein As far as I know this would have been only the 5th case of its kind to jump the Court of Appeals in the last 20 years or so had they granted cert before judgment.

@MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein (But perhaps you know more about appellate practice than I do. :) )

@SirCanuckles TBC I don't think that. I think 2 months is fine.

@InquisitiveUrsa See also the immigration judges issue which slows up asylum processing. We just don't have enough judicial officers at multiple points in the system.

@mo_sabet @MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein It's at the point where I've answered most of the talking points. :)

@mo_sabet @MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein And I'm not saying you do this but there's a "they do this all the time" sort of talking point being thrown around and no, even now, they really don't do it all the time. It's very rare.

@reedtcampbell Whereas here, this is not a discovery issue or grinding ongoing investigations to a halt. It's just a legal issue about whether there can be a trial.

@Trillest110 @Perl_of_Wisdom @ChiCyph80 @MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein There's a reason Finley Peter Dunne's joke about SCOTUS following the election returns has so much bite. You don't want courts thinking about this shit, let alone trying to influence the results of elections (which of course is the real goal here).

@Trillest110 @Perl_of_Wisdom @ChiCyph80 @MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein I definitely want the official rule to be "the election is legally irrelevant".