Levin Provides Trump with Roadmap to the Supreme Court Before 2024 Elections

Beatriz Madan | June 14, 2024
DONATE
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size

Conservative commentator and Constitutional Scholar Mark Levin’s is recommending steps that President Trump’s lawyers should take, in response to the recent guilty verdicts in the prosecution brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

In the latest episode of Life, Liberty & Levin on Fox News Channel, Levin argues for appealing straight to the U.S. Supreme Court – immediately – on the ground that the Court has jurisdiction and waiting for the New York State appellate process to run before going to the Court would take too long and further influence the upcoming presidential elections.

Among other things, Levin points out that the underlying offense in Bragg’s prosecution – the thing that makes the case a felony and thus the thing that extended the N.Y. statutory limitations period by just enough to prosecute the former President – is an alleged violation of federal elections law. In other words, the whole of Bragg’s case is premised on a point of federal – not New York – law. If Trump’s non-disclosure agreement was not a violation of federal elections law, then Bragg’s prosecution utterly collapses and the verdicts are null.

Levin argues that this point of federal elections law (as indeed the question of whether this is an impermissible interference with a federal presidential election) is a matter for the federal courts to rule on and squarely within their jurisdiction.

So, how to get the matter into the federal court system?

Levin argues that common-law writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, etc., may be issued by federal courts under the All Writs Act, enacted in its original form in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorizes them to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdiction[.]”

Accordingly, and citing the U.S. Supreme Court precedent of Bush v. Gore (2000), Levin urges President Trump’s lawyers to request one or more such writs, under the Act, from the U.S. Supreme Court, to decide the point of federal elections law and settle this matter before it further affects the November’s presidential election.