Legal experts debate possibility of SCOTUS intervention in Trump's NY case

In the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump's Thursday conviction, the former president and his legal team made clear their intent to appeal the verdict, but in the eyes of many, that process is likely to be a slow one, certainly not yielding a resolution ahead of the November election.

However, a growing number of legal observers are debating whether and how Trump's attorneys may be able to secure intervention in the case on the part of the U.S. Supreme Court, given the matter's obvious implications for the presidency itself, as the Daily Caller reports.

Divergent opinions emerge

Discussion of the options that may be available to the Trump legal team heated up last week during an installment of Fox News' The Ingraham Angle. Legal commentators Sol Wisenberg and Chris Landau explored the possibility of SCOTUS involvement in the case prior to the exhaustion of all state appeals processes.

Ingraham referenced the “extraordinary and historic” nature of the situation in which the country finds itself and asked, “Does that then give impetus to the court to step in where they might not have wanted to and in another event?”

Wisenberg opined, “I think it would be an incredible long shot if they did. I think it would have to be something like you mentioned where [Judge Juan] Merchan does something in terms of the conditions of release while the appeal is pending that significantly interferes with the election campaign. Then you've got a potential constitutional issue.”

Landau jumped in and noted, “Of course, it's a long shot, but this is just an extraordinary, unprecedented case in American history. This is not your normal criminal appeal,” suggesting that perhaps the high court would take an active role in the matter.

Others weigh in

As the Daily Wire reports, a host of other legal heavy hitters have entered the conversation about possible Supreme Court intervention in the Trump case, with some of them expressing far more optimism than Ingraham's two guests.

Conservative radio host and legal expert Mark Levin has voiced his personal surprise that more commentators appear to be dismissing the notion of Supreme Court involvement at an earlier stage of appeal than might otherwise be available.

“The issue is how to get out of the New York system and bring the case to the Supreme Court, which may or may not take it up. That is why I look to Bush v. Gore, where the S Ct decided to step in BECAUSE it was a presidential election,” Levin recently wrote.

Levin explained, “In New York, you would file the notice of appeal, ask for a stay of the trial court, and seek expedited review. You need to protect your ability to timely appeal and not abandon it.”

“You might then file applications for common law writs with the U.S. Supreme Court, where the S Ct can take action if it chooses, and legitimately claim the harm is immediate and ongoing not just to a presidential candidate but to the federal electoral system, federal campaign jurisdiction (reverse federalism), and the precedent that might otherwise be set and spread throughout the country,” he went on.

Whether that path is indeed a viable one that Trump's team will pursue, however, only time will tell.