GOP measure presses SCOTUS to intervene in Trump case
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Rep. William Timmons. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images.
A House Republican is introducing a resolution urging the Supreme Court to intervene in former President Trump's New York hush money case before the 2024 election.
Why it matters: The measure, which puts on paper what many House Republicans have been saying for weeks, is a non-binding alternative to the more actionable Trump defense some conservatives have pushed.
- One House Republican close to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told Axios they expect the measure to get a vote and it would likely garner universal GOP support.
- The lawmaker said the conservative bill, which would allow presidents to move state charges against them to federal court, has "good support" but "not universal yet."
Driving the news: Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.), who survived a tough right-wing primary challenge last week with Trump's endorsement, is arguing that the Supreme Court has the legal authority to immediately intervene in the case.
- Legal experts told Axios' Sareen Habeshian that the Supreme Court can only get involved in Trump's appeal of his state court verdict if it relates to the Constitution or federal law.
- Timmons' 7-page resolution argues that procedural elements of the Trump case raise Constitutional questions that warrant such intervention, along with its "unprecedented nature" and "overwhelming public interest."
- The Court should act "with all deliberate speed and possible urgency" so voters can "make informed decisions about the upcoming presidential election," the measure says.
Zoom out: Trump, Johnson and Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), a potential vice presidential contender, have all argued for the Supreme Court to intervene.
- The symbolic measure offers House Republicans an opportunity to demonstrate their fealty to the former president.
Go deeper: Scoop: Johnson seeks votes for bill to support Trump after guilty verdict
Editor's note: This story has been corrected by removing a reference to the Senate voting on the measure.
