Jack Smith has submitted a request to the Supreme Court that would require them to rule on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for his attempts at interfering with the 2024 elections. They could rule on this within weeks.
Judge Tanya Chutkan has already put off what would have been an unprecedented criminal trial of Donald Trump after she rejected his claim of immunity for actions committed as part of his official duties.
Time is of the essence
Once an appeals court completes its work on a case, they issue what’s known as a mandate to return control over to the trial judge and schedule further proceedings. But this week, the DC Circuit issued a special order saying they will wait to issue their mandate until after hearing what the Supreme Court’s final verdict on President Trump’s request to bypass its jurisdiction will be.
Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a legal brief Monday asking the Supreme Court to stay last week’s ruling from a three-judge panel of federal appeals judges in Washington that disproved President Trump’s claim of presidential immunity from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s charges. Smith stated it is of utmost public importance that the Court hear and decide this matter soonest possible, adding “it would allow it to set a timeline as to when an appeals court ruling may occur, thus delaying trial starting.
The public’s interest is at stake
This week, the Supreme Court is facing a busy agenda, ruling on matters such as whether Idaho can impose a six-week abortion ban and how much leeway government agencies have when interpreting laws without knowing which specific ones apply – among many other matters.
Decisions on presidential immunity have an immense stake. Trump’s attorneys have asserted that permitting his trial to continue would set a dangerous precedent and could result in “destructive cycles of recrimination”, making it hard for future Presidents to carry out their official duties effectively.
They plan to put the case on hold while seeking input from a full federal appeals court in Washington and then filing formal petition to the conservative-majority Supreme Court; should they succeed, its justices would determine whether Trump’s trial can proceed; otherwise, prosecution must start over with new jury selection and other preparations for trial proceedings.
The court’s decision could affect the outcome of the 2024 election
This decision could have significant ramifications. It will likely determine how quickly a federal judge in Washington can resume Trump’s trial, which was originally scheduled to start March 4. Furthermore, it could provide prosecutors with more clarity as to when we might see a ruling by the Supreme Court regarding his immunity claims and set the stage for the 2024 elections.
Trump’s legal representatives contend that forcing him to appear before a jury while running against President Joe Biden would severely hamper his ability to campaign and violate tens of millions of voters’ rights. If, however, the prosecution proceeds, this could signal to future Presidents that their official acts won’t always escape legal accountability without consequence.
The justices have not made their decision regarding Smith’s request to bypass the appeals court yet, but have indicated their interest by setting an expeditious response date of Dec 20 for Smith’s legal team to respond. This suggests they are ready to act quickly on this issue.
The court’s decision could delay the trial
Legal challenges to Donald Trump’s immunity could postpone his trial, set for March 4th. If successful in delaying it long enough, he may avoid being found guilty of any crimes before voters cast their votes for their nominee this November.
The Supreme Court is expected to render its decision on President Trump’s request to halt his case soon. Justices will consider his challenge of a lower court ruling that disapproved of his claim of absolute immunity for actions taken as president, and set a schedule if they do accept his challenge; setting such a schedule will in turn determine when trial might start if ultimately they rule against him; for now prosecutors have 13 million pages of evidence they must review; “importance does not automatically necessitate extraordinary haste”, wrote CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen in an email sent directly to clients.
- Friday Intraday Trading Sees Nvidia’s stock Market Cap Momentarily Cross $2 Trillion
- Trump’s January 6 Civil Cases Proceed While Criminal Case Is Halted
- Trump Delivers Speech at the Columbia Black Conservative Federation Gala
- Trump Declares Strong Support for IVF Following Alabama Supreme Court Decision
- Schumer in Ukraine Declares US Backing During House Aid Standoff