In an unprecedented move, Special Counsel Jack Smith has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to expedite a decision on whether former President Donald Trump is shielded from prosecution in a case concerning election subversion.
Trump has sought to have this case dismissed.
This request, if granted, would be the first time the Supreme Court has intervened in the criminal prosecutions of the former President. Trump has been indicted by a grand jury for his alleged attempts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Trump's defense is rooted in the claim of "presidential immunity" for crimes committed during his tenure, a notion that the presiding federal judge has dismissed. The former President has appealed this decision.
In a document submitted to the Supreme Court on Monday, Smith's team from the U.S. Department of Justice requested the justices to rule on "whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin."
The filing acknowledged the extraordinary nature of the request, stating, "The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request. This is an extraordinary case."
Smith has urged the justices to establish a timeline that would allow the case to be argued and resolved as swiftly as possible. Over the weekend, Smith's team implored the federal court overseeing the case to dismiss Trump's appeal attempts to maintain the trial schedule set for March 4, 2024.
The Supreme Court filing on Monday highlighted that Trump's appeal effectively "suspends" the trial schedule, potentially disrupting a year of criminal trials during an election year. This comes as Trump, the 2024 Republican frontrunner, seeks a return to the White House.
Prosecutors wrote to the Supreme Court, "It is of imperative public importance that [Mr Trumps] claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondents trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected. Respondents claims are profoundly mistaken ... Only this Court can definitively resolve them."
On December 1, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Trump's single term did not grant him "the divine right of kings" to evade criminal accountability. She wrote, "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. A former Presidents exposure to federal criminal liability is essential to fulfilling our constitutional promise of equal justice under the law."
Federal prosecutors echoed this sentiment in their Monday submission to the Supreme Court, stating that such liability is a "cornerstone" of constitutional law. They wrote, "The force of that principle is at its zenith where, as here, a grand jury has accused a former President of committing federal crimes to subvert the peaceful transfer of power to his lawfully elected successor."
The filing added, "Nothing could be more vital to our democracy than that a President who abuses the electoral system to remain in office is held accountable for criminal conduct. Yet respondent has asserted that the Constitution accords him absolute immunity from prosecution. The Constitutions text, structure, and history lend no support to that novel claim."
Trump faces four charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The federal indictment is based on Trump's alleged lies and knowledge of his "deceit" about the election's outcome, his campaign's attempts to pressure state officials and push false slates of electors to obstruct the certification of the results, a failed attempt to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to refuse the outcome, and Trump's failure to stop his supporters from breaching the U.S. Capitol.
Login