The mystery over why an appellate panel is taking so long to rule on President Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution — and the chaos with the January 6 case that the silence has created — could be a warning sign for Special Counsel Jack Smith.

A panel of three riders of the United States Appeals Circuit for the District of Columbia heard on January 9 arguments on whether Mr. Trump is protected by the immunity that attaches to the presidency. In their comments and questions during the hearing, the three judges appeared skeptical in respect of Mr. Trump’s expansive understanding of his prerogatives. 

Nearly a month later, though, there is still no white smoke from the jurists. The panel comprises Judges Karen Henderson, Michelle Childs, and Florence Pan. The first rider was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, the second by President Biden, and the third by President Obama. The D.C. Circuit has proved to be difficult terrain for the 45th president. 

So, for that matter, has the District courtroom of Judge Tanya Chutkan. She ruled that “former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability” and that the presidency “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”  That conclusion, because it involves parsing law rather than determining fact, will be reviewed de novo, or from scratch.

Adding to the conundrum of why the panel has not yet ruled is that the circuit — unlike the Supreme Court — chose to take up the issue on an expedited basis, rushing it to the front of its docket. Now, though, the panel appears to be in no rush at all. Whoever is dealt an adverse ruling can request an en banc hearing of the whole circuit, as well as review before the Supreme Court. 

The circuit’s dawdling is already taking a toll on Judge Chutkan’s timeline, and it is not hard to imagine the government’s growing dread. A March 9 trial date has been done away with by an order indefinitely delaying the proceedings, and Politico reports that prospective jurors, who were to report for a screening on Friday, have been informed that they don’t need to report for service after all, but will be “resummoned again in the future.”

On Monday, in another matter, Judge Chutkan related that she hopes “not to be in the country on August 5” and that if she were here, it would be because she was “in trial in another matter that has not yet returned to my calendar.” That is a reference to Mr. Smith’s case, and suggests that the judge is contemplating whether Mr. Trump’s prosecution could stretch deep into the dog days of summer.

Speculating on the silence is necessarily an inexact science. One explanation could be that the panel is, given the constitutional import, working for an opinion that is unanimous. Another reason could be that the trio is attempting to craft an opinion that will stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny. Appellate judges are notoriously loath to be overturned by the Nine.

A drawn out process could thrust into sharper relief Mr. Smith’s motivations for a brisk pace to the case. Writing to the Supreme Court, he noted the “compelling public interest” in the outcome of the prosecution of Mr. Trump for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. He has thus far, though, held back from explicitly arguing that he wants to try Mr. Trump before he, potentially, regains the White House.