Jack Smith Responds To Trump’s Request For Supreme Court To Intervene In Presidential Immunity Appeal

 Special counsel Jack Smith opposed on Wednesday Trump’s request for the Supreme Court to intervene in his presidential immunity appeal.

Trump filed an emergency application Monday asking the Supreme Court to stay the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling finding he is not immune from prosecution in the election interference case. Smith argued in his response Wednesday that further delay in Trump’s case — which is on hold at the district court pending the resolution of his appeal — violates the public interest in a “speedy and fair verdict.”

“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power,” the filing states.

District Judge Tanya Chutkan initially rejected Trump’s bid to dismiss his case based on presidential immunity Dec. 1. After Trump appealed, she paused proceedings in the case. Chutkan officially vacated his March 4 trial date earlier this month.

The Supreme Court declined Smith’s request in late December to review the presidential immunity issue before letting the lower court weigh in. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision against Trump last week, prompting Trump’s request to stay the ruling.

The timeline for continuing Trump’s trial now depends on how the Supreme Court chooses to handle the issue.

Smith’s filing comes earlier than the Feb. 20 deadline for a response set by the Supreme Court. It reflects his continued push to quickly get the case to trial.

If the court believes Trump’s request is worth reviewing, Smith argued that it should “treat the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and set the case for expedited briefing and argument.”

“An expedited schedule would permit the Court to issue its opinion and judgment resolving the threshold immunity issue as promptly as possible this Term, so that, if the Court rejects applicant’s immunity claim, a timely and fair trial can begin with minimal additional delay,” he continued. “The government proposes a schedule that would permit argument in March 2024, consistent with the Court’s expedition of other cases meriting such treatment.”