Arthur Fergenson, a former judicial clerk for the late Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger, has laid out a path for former President Donald Trump to swiftly challenge any potential guilty verdict in his New York trial. This insight, shared during an interview with conservative commentator Mark Levin, offers a dramatic twist in Trump’s ongoing legal battles.
Fergenson explained that Trump could petition the U.S. Supreme Court immediately if convicted, leveraging both statutory writs of certiorari and a variety of other processes known as common law writs. These mechanisms, though rarely granted, provide a legal framework for the Supreme Court to review cases from lower appellate courts. “The Supreme Court can act by its statutory writs of certiorari to take a case from a lower appellate court,” Fergenson stated, adding that they could also use common law writs authorized by the Judiciary Act of 1789.
The crux of Fergenson’s argument hinges on what he perceives as a denial of due process in the case brought forward by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Bragg’s strategy involved upgrading misdemeanor bookkeeping charges to felonies under COVID-era statutes, resulting in 34 felony counts and a potential 136-year prison sentence for Trump. However, Fergenson pointed out a critical flaw: Bragg has not identified an underlying crime that would elevate these charges to felonies.
“The principle ground I would rely upon is the denial of due process by not informing Donald Trump of the underlying federal crime he was alleged to have committed,” Fergenson said. He likened this approach to the notorious Stalin show trials, where defendants were tried without being informed of their alleged crimes. Such a breach of due process rights, he argued, constitutes a “kangaroo court” scenario—thus warranting immediate Supreme Court intervention.
Fergenson also drew parallels between Trump’s case and the historic Bush v. Gore decision, suggesting that the Supreme Court could intervene to safeguard American democracy. “The Supreme Court warned that Bush v. Gore not be relied on as a precedent—on the merits. But it can and should be relied upon as the Supreme Court acting to preserve American democracy from an imminent threat,” he asserted.
This explosive revelation underscores the contentious nature of Trump’s legal battles and the high stakes involved. As the trial looms, the prospect of Supreme Court intervention adds another layer of complexity to an already charged political atmosphere. Fergenson’s insights highlight the potential for unprecedented legal maneuvers that could reshape the landscape of American jurisprudence.
In the end, whether or not the Supreme Court will step in remains to be seen. However, Fergenson’s comments have undoubtedly added fuel to the fire, raising the possibility of a dramatic courtroom showdown that could have far-reaching implications for the future of U.S. politics.