They want him to respond promptly.
The Supreme Court has been urged to accelerate its review of a petition from special counsel Jack Smith regarding the potential prosecution of former President Donald Trump over alleged actions to overturn the 2020 election results.
Smith requested expedited action to avoid trial delays that might push proceedings beyond next year’s presidential election. Trump’s trial for alleged election interference is scheduled for March. The Court instructed Trump’s legal team to respond to Smith’s motion by December 20, two days later than Smith’s initial request.
The Court’s upcoming conference slated for January 5, 2024, is the next designated session for such deliberations. However, the court’s concise order did not indicate its ultimate course of action. While a federal judge greenlit the case to proceed, Trump aimed to appeal this decision at the federal appeals court in Washington. Smith seeks to bypass this usual appeal and bring the matter directly to the Supreme Court.
Prosecutors argue that the case addresses a pivotal issue regarding the immunity of a former President from federal prosecution for acts committed while in office or after impeachment but before a conviction in criminal proceedings.
Trump’s presidential campaign criticized Smith’s attempt to bypass the appeals court, alleging an ulterior motive to harm Trump and his supporters. The Court’s next private session is scheduled for January 5, 2024, but it remains uncertain if the justices might convene earlier to address Smith’s plea.
The crux of the matter is a December 1 ruling by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, rejecting claims by Trump’s legal team that he held immunity from federal prosecution. Chutkan emphasized that the presidency doesn’t grant perpetual immunity from criminal liability and that former Presidents remain subject to federal investigation, indictment, and punishment for actions taken while in office.
Should the justices intervene, it would mark their first ruling on whether former presidents possess immunity from prosecution. Justice Department policy typically shields a sitting president from indictment. Trump’s lawyers contend that his official duties as president shield him from prosecution for related actions—a stance vehemently contested by prosecutors.
Smith’s team underscores the urgency of resolving this issue in the current term, highlighting the case’s exceptional nature. They advocate for an expedited review to facilitate a swift resolution.
Furthermore, prosecutors want the Court to address Trump’s argument, dismissed by Chutkan, that he cannot face prosecution for conduct that led to his impeachment and subsequent acquittal by Congress.
Trump faces charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election results and has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Should the justices decline involvement at this stage, Trump’s appeal would proceed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. However, even a prompt appellate decision might not reach the Supreme Court before the customary summer recess.
