Legal analyst Norman Eisen criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s handling of former President Donald Trump’s presidential immunity case, stating that the court is not focused on justice. Eisen’s op-ed on MSNBC highlighted the delay in Trump’s federal election subversion case, where he faces four felony counts for trying to unlawfully stay in power after losing to President Joe Biden.
The Supreme Court’s evaluation of Trump’s presidential immunity from criminal charges has stalled the proceedings, following oral arguments on April 25. Eisen argued that the case was legally unnecessary as the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already rejected Trump’s defense.
Concerns about biases among conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas were raised, impacting the court’s integrity. Allegations of misconduct and conflicts of interest have been linked to the justices, prompting calls for recusal. Eisen called for Chief Justice John Roberts to provide transparency on their involvement in Trump’s case.
While debates continue over the justices’ impartiality, the focus remains on upholding justice in the legal system amidst political pressures and public scrutiny.
Newsweek sought the Supreme Court’s response to Eisen’s critique, as lawmakers and legal experts weigh in on the ongoing controversy surrounding Trump’s immunity case.