In major cases concerning former President Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Court has tried to put some distance between itself and politics. That fragile project does not seem to be succeeding.
“If the court is trying to stay out of the political fray, it is failing miserably,” said Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University.
The case for attempted unity at the court in cases involving the former president is built on 27 data points, or nine votes each in three important rulings, all nominally unanimous. Those rulings suggest that the justices are trying to find consensus and avoid politics.
There were no dissents, for instance, in Monday’s Supreme Court decision letting Mr. Trump stay on ballots nationwide despite a constitutional provision that bars insurrectionists from holding office.
Nor were there noted dissents in December, when the court turned away a request from government prosecutors to bypass a federal appeals court and render a prompt decision on Mr. Trump’s audacious claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election. That could have ensured a trial well before the 2024 election.
And there were, similarly, no noted dissents last week when that case returned to the court after a unanimous three-judge panel of the appeals court soundly rejected the immunity argument. The Supreme Court, after mulling what to do for more than two weeks, decided to keep Mr. Trump’s trial on hold while it considers the case, scheduling arguments for about seven weeks later and putting the prospect of a trial verdict before the election in grave peril.
