In a significant development, Special Counsel Jack Smith has taken the unusual step of asking the US Supreme Court to consider President Trump’s claims of immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes committed while in office. This move comes in the wake of Trump being hit with four counts in Jack Smith’s January 6 case in DC, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding. With the trial scheduled for March 4, Smith is seeking to expedite the process and secure a conviction before the upcoming election.
The January 6 case against Trump, led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, has brought forward serious charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. These charges stem from events related to the January 6 Capitol riot and are now at the center of a legal battle surrounding Trump’s immunity claims.
Trump’s legal team argues that as a former US President, he is immune from federal prosecution for any alleged crimes committed while in office. This claim raises important questions about the limits of presidential immunity and the extent of constitutional protection afforded to a former President. Jack Smith’s request to the Supreme Court seeks clarification on whether a former President can be held immune from federal prosecution or constitutionally protected when impeachment charges have not resulted in conviction prior to criminal proceedings.
By bypassing the appellate court and directly petitioning the US Supreme Court, Special Counsel Jack Smith aims to expedite the trial process and ensure a conviction before the upcoming election. Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley suggests that Smith’s decision to approach the Supreme Court directly is driven by a desire to guarantee a trial of Trump and potentially secure a conviction. Smith’s move is motivated by concerns over any potential delay in the trial, given the favorable perception of the D.C. Circuit, where the case currently resides.
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…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 11, 2023
…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…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 11, 2023
…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.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 11, 2023
However, seeking a trial and conviction of Trump during the election campaign may not be viewed as urgently or significantly by the Supreme Court as it is by Jack Smith. Turley notes that the Supreme Court typically prefers to hear the views of appellate judges on novel legal arguments, indicating that the Court may not be inclined to rush the process. The involvement of the Supreme Court in this case holds significant implications for the interpretation of presidential immunity and the potential consequences for a former President accused of criminal wrongdoing.
Despite the request to involve the Supreme Court, Jack Smith’s prosecutors have made it clear that they are committed to keeping the trial on schedule. In a court filing, they emphasized the public’s strong interest in a prompt trial and expressed their intention to ensure that the trial proceeds as planned. This stance reflects the determination of the prosecution to proceed with the case without any unnecessary delay.