The Supreme Court has made it virtually impossible to hold a trial before November for Trump’s crimes leading up to January 6.

We're resending this email from earlier in the week to make sure you didn't miss it. The stakes truly could not be higher.

Hi,

What the Supreme Court did this week is an absolute outrage.

By further delaying the criminal trial against Donald Trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, the Supreme Court has effectively guaranteed that there will be no trial before the 2024 election.1

The justices had a choice: uphold the rule of law and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, or throw all that away to help one man, Donald Trump.

They chose Trump.

It's now beyond dispute that this Supreme Court is so hopelessly corrupt that major reforms are urgently needed to restore the fundamental legitimacy of the Court and save American democracy.

That's why we're asking you now, on this dark day for democracy: Will you donate $10 to Demand Progress Action and support our work, including pushing for real Supreme Court ethics reform?

Donate $10

Donate $20

Donate $40

Or, donate another amount

It's been nearly a year since Trump was indicted by a grand jury for criminally attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The trial was originally scheduled to start in March.2 By now, we should be approaching closing arguments and a verdict.3

Instead, the Supreme Court stepped in, using the Trump legal team's laughable argument that the president has total immunity for all crimes committed while in office, to stop the trial cold.4

This ruling is a direct result of years of corruption at the Supreme Court. Millions of dollars in gifts and payments have flowed to the justices from right-wing and corporate benefactors.5 Basic judicial rules of ethics have become a punchline.

Clarence Thomas's wife was personally engaged in the effort to overturn the election. He had no business participating in this case from the start due to his obvious conflict of interest.6 Under typical judicial norms, Samuel Alito should also have recused himself due to the obvious perception of bias after it was revealed that pro-MAGA flags had flown in front of his houses after January 6.7

Demand Progress has been fighting for Supreme Court reform for years, and we've mobilized over 100,000 people to contact Congress demanding a binding code of ethics for the justices. But this is a watershed moment, and we must turn up the pressure.

Please donate $10 to help Demand Progress Action advocate for real Supreme Court ethics reform, and push for other key reforms.

With gratitude,

The team at Demand Progress Action

Sources:
1. The New York Times, "Supreme Court Says Trump Is Partly Shielded From Prosecution," July 1, 2024.
2. Politico, "Judge hints at delay for Trump's March trial date in federal election case," January 18, 2024.
3. Just Security, "When Special Counsel Smith's January 6th Trial Will Reach a Verdict: Analyzing the Alternative Timelines," March 1, 2024.
4. Slate, "SCOTUS Is Slow-Walking for Trump," March 1, 2024.
5. ProPublica, "Friends of the Court," accessed July 1, 2024.
6. The Washington Post, "Ginni Thomas called 2020 a 'heist.' Clarence Thomas must recuse himself." December 22, 2023.
7. The New York Times, "Experts Question Alito's Failure to Recuse Himself in Flag Controversy," May 30, 2024.

PAID FOR BY DEMAND PROGRESS (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Join our online community on Facebook or Twitter.

You can unsubscribe from this list at any time.