If you read my two-column series (here and here) on the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that Donald Trump lacks immunity from criminal prosecution, you will not be surprised that the former president has formally asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling. Trump filed his petition today, which is the deadline the circuit gave him to seek the high court’s intervention — in exchange for the circuit’s exercising its discretion to keep in place the stay on proceedings before Judge Tanya Chutkan in the district court.

Amusingly, Trump begins his petition by citing no less a jurisprudential giant than Yogi Berra, who famously said of some familiar phenomenon or other, “It’s déjà vu all over again.”

It’s clever. The former president’s team wants to remind the justices that, only a few weeks ago, Biden Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith contended it was so critical for the justices to weigh in on the immunity question that the usual appellate process — appeal to the circuit of Judge Chutkan’s ruling against Trump — should be bypassed. Recall that after the Supremes declined to intervene prematurely, Smith succeeded in persuading the circuit to rule in his favor on an expedited schedule; so now, expect Smith to tell the justices “never mind” — i.e., the prosecutor will most likely object to Trump’s petition and ask the justices to let the circuit’s ruling stand. If the court were to take the immunity case and not expedite consideration of it, there would be no prospect of Smith’s achieving his goal: forcing Trump to stand trial on the 2020 election-interference case before the the 2024 election

I expect that justices will act more quickly than usual in deciding whether to take the appeal — but that doesn’t mean it will be quick as that word is normally understood. It’s an important issue, and the petition has been filed by a former American president, so it would be good if the justices took the case.

Still, I’m betting they won’t. That’s because (a) the circuit’s decision is well-reasoned and faithfully reasons from the Court’s relevant jurisprudence, (b) the Court would like as little involvement as possible in cases bearing on the 2024 election, (c) the Court is already dealing with the election-related effort by Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot, and most consequentially, (d) the Court has agreed to hear the challenge by several January 6 defendants to the Justice Department’s use of the obstruction statute (§1512(c)(2) of the federal penal code), which is central to Smith’s election-interference indictment against Trump — at this point, the obstruction issue is more important than the immunity issue.

We’ll watch what the Court does with the petition.