Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to consider Trump’s immunity claims.
Trump’s lawyers have argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while serving as U.S. President.
“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office,” Smith wrote in his filing to the Supreme Court.
The “crimes” include conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights, each of which pertains to the January 6 Capitol event.
Smith asked the Supreme Court to take action on the case as to prevent delays that could push the trial after the 2024 presidential election.
The Trump campaign criticized Smith for attempting to circumvent the appeals court, saying, “There is absolutely no reason to rush this sham to trial except to injure President Trump and tens of millions of his supporters. President Trump will continue to fight for Justice and oppose these authoritarian tactics.”
The Supreme Court responded to Smith’s request: “Petitioner’s motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted, and respondent is directed to file a response to the petition on or before 4 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, December 20, 2023.”
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley reacted to Smith’s petition to the Supreme Court on X, writing, Special Counsel Jack Smith is now seeking to leapfrog the appellate court and ask for a ruling from the Supreme Court on Trump’s immunity claims. The only reason for this petition is to seek to guarantee a trial of Trump (and possible conviction) before the election…”
“The matter is currently before the D.C. Circuit which is viewed as a favorable court for Smith. However, Smith is trying to avoid any delay in the March trial date, set to begin the day before Super Tuesday,” he said. “The Supreme Court may not view a trial of Trump during the campaign to be as motivating or urgent as does Smith. This is a novel legal argument that the Court would ordinarily prefer to hear the views from the appellate judges.”
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan previously rejected arguments from Trump’s lawyers that the former president was immune from federal prosecution.
In her opinion on the case, Chutkan said, “Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”
“Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office,” the opinion continued, adding, “Defendant’s four-year service as Commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens.”
