The impending U.S. presidential election on Nov. 5 has the potential to fundamentally alter the trajectory of former President Donald Trump’s pending legal challenges.

If Trump succeeds in winning the election against Vice President Kamala Harris, a host of legal proceedings against him could be delayed due to presidential immunity or even dropped altogether, providing him with possible relief from legal challenges during his term and after, as the New York Sun reports.

Nov. 5 is shaping up to be a significant day for former President Trump, as it not only marks the presidential election but also a potential turning point for his ongoing legal battles.

The expectation is that a win could shield Trump from many of the judicial proceedings currently underway, particularly those led by Special Counsel Jack Smith regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol unrest and his handling of documents at Mar-a-Lago. This strategy would align neatly with Trump’s legal team's existing efforts to postpone trials past the election.

Potential Delays in Legal Proceedings

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been the only prosecutor to successfully take Trump to trial, having secured a conviction with sentencing planned for the upcoming month.

However, if Trump returns to office on Jan. 20, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) customarily freezes cases against sitting presidents, relieving them from indictment or criminal proceedings during their tenure. This longstanding practice, with roots tracing back to President Thomas Jefferson in 1807, maintains that only impeachment by the House of Representatives can bring an acting president to court.

An opinion from the DOJ has reinforced this notion, asserting that a serving president has unique protection against indictments that other officers do not enjoy. This legal shield means that Trump, if elected, could see an extended pause in federal legal actions against him until he leaves office.

Nonetheless, the situation is not as straightforward for cases at the state level. For instance, the DOJ’s policy on presidential immunity lacks authority over state proceedings, meaning cases in New York and Fulton County, Georgia, could still target Trump. Yet, the Supreme Court might find cause to intervene, potentially leveraging the Constitution's Supremacy Clause to override state-level prosecutions.

Jack Smith’s Pursuit of Trump

Smith, who is heading the federal cases against Trump, faces significant hurdles regardless of the election outcome. Smith's efforts have gained legal traction, particularly after the Supreme Court sent the case concerning alleged election interference back to Judge Tanya Chutkan's court rather than uphold Trump’s blanket immunity claims.

Smith's argument proposes that the acts in question are not protected by presidential immunity as they are unofficial. However, Trump’s successful election could nullify these efforts, potentially halting proceedings until he concludes his term.

If Trump returns to the Oval Office, he could notably influence his prosecutions by appointing an attorney general with the authority to dismiss Smith and potentially drop the cases against him, albeit with the requirement to demonstrate “good cause.” The Supreme Court has recognized the Executive Branch retains “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” concerning which crimes should undergo investigation and prosecution, indicating a president's significant power over such matters.

Possibility Of Presidential Self-Pardon

Trump might also exercise the presidential pardon power as a tool to evade his legal troubles. The U.S. Constitution grants the president the ability to pardon offenses against the United States, excluding impeachments. However, whether this power extends to self-pardoning remains an open question, as the Supreme Court has yet to rule on this unprecedented scenario.

During arguments surrounding prosecutor actions during Trump’s previous court challenges, Justice Neil Gorsuch pondered the legality of presidents pardoning themselves. The intricacies of self-pardoning raise concerns, exemplified by DOJ advocate Michael Dreeben's view that pardoning oneself could violate the foundational legal principle that bars a person from judging their own case.

While Trump’s potential re-election could serve as a temporary safeguard against federal prosecutions, his legal team’s strategy hinges on influencing both existing and potential judicial proceedings, aiming to forestall any consequential actions until he is, once again, a private citizen. The broader implications of this strategy depend largely on the legal interpretations and actions of both federal and state justice systems in the coming months.

State-Level Legal Complications

The legal complexities surrounding Trump’s potential re-election extend beyond presidential immunity issues. The pardon power does not encompass state prosecutions, thereby leaving him potentially exposed to legal actions from state prosecutors such as Bragg in New York and Fani Willis in Fulton County, Georgia. These cases are not subject to the federal immunity a sitting president enjoys, thus remaining a potentially ongoing concern for Trump irrespective of election outcomes.

The intricacies of these legal matters are compounded by the potential for U.S. Supreme Court intervention, whereby the highest court could mediate based on the constitutional authority claimed under the Supremacy Clause.

This prospect underscores the tangled web of Trump’s legal challenges, which extends beyond federal jurisdiction into state-level nuances.

As the nation approaches the Nov. 5 election, with both political and legal landscapes hanging in the balance, the results could have profound effects not only on presidential power dynamics but also on the future of the rule of law in the United States. This situation demands close attention from legal scholars and political analysts alike, as it traverses unexplored constitutional territories.