JUST IN: Jack Smith Hits Back at Trump In Scathing Respone Against Delaying Supreme Court Immunity Appeal

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request they take up the issue of presidential immunity after Judge Tanya Chutkan denied two motions to dismiss from Trump’s team, based on First Amendment and presidential immunity claims.

Trump and his lawyers responded with a filing demanding the Court wait until the lower appeals court rules on the issue.

On Thursday, Smith filed a scathing response opposing Trump’s motion, writing:

Respondent agrees that the important constitutional question in this case will require this Court’s review. But he maintains that the Court should wait for the appellate process to unfold below so that this Court has the benefit of the court of appeals’ decision. Br. in Opp. 17-21. That suggestion is misguided. The public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this Court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves—for the first time in our Nation’s history—criminal charges against a former President based on his actions while in office. And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election. The Nation has a compelling interest in a decision on respondent’s claim of immunity from these charges—and if they are to be tried, a resolution by conviction or acquittal, without undue delay.

Given respondent’s categorical immunity claim over every act alleged in the indictment—all of which, he contends, fall within the outer perimeter of his “official” duties, see Br. in Opp. 8, 16—this Court’s review is essential to allow this case to move forward. Only this Court can provide the final word on his immunity defense.

19 AGs File Brief Opposing Jack Smith’s ‘Partisan’
Bid To Fast-Track His Get-Trump Prosecution

thefederalist.com, BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD, DECEMBER 21, 2023

Nearly 20 state attorneys general filed a legal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request that the high court expeditiously rule on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution.

“[T]he special counsel is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to jump into the fray. But he gives no reason why the public interest demands a rushed trial, which suggests the real reason is to swing the presidential election,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a statement. “The Court should not play along. As our brief points out, in asking for this extraordinary remedy, without giving any reason for why it is warranted, the special counsel’s petition itself is strong evidence of a political prosecution designed to decide the 2024 election.”

Smith — who brought “legally flawed and politically shady” charges against Trump for contesting the 2020 election results in August — requested earlier this month that SCOTUS bypass the appellate process and rule on whether the former president enjoys lifelong immunity from prosecution. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee with a track record of political rulings, previously denied Trump’s claims on the subject, prompting his legal team to file an appeal with the D.C. Court of Appeals.

If SCOTUS were to rule in Smith’s favor, it would essentially allow the special counsel to accelerate Trump’s trial, which is currently set for this upcoming March, and likely obtain a conviction ahead of the 2024 election cycle.

With the high court having since agreed to “fast-track its consideration of whether to hear the case,” Marshall and 18 other state attorneys general are taking legal action to support Trump before SCOTUS. In their legal brief, the AGs voiced opposition to Smith’s request and noted how the special counsel never explains in its filing why “[i]t is of imperative public importance” that SCOTUS expeditiously rule on Trump’s claims regarding presidential immunity or why the former president’s trial should “proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”

The special counsel “never explains why waiting a few additional months for the Court of Appeals to decide this issue would damage the public interest,” the brief reads. “Instead, the United States offers only a tautology: if the Court agrees to review the case sooner, it can review the case sooner. That is no reason to justify the prosecution’s ‘extraordinary request.’”

The AGs further detailed how Smith’s lack of reasoning explaining why SCOTUS should fast-track a decision on Trump’s claims suggests the Justice Department’s actions are based on “partisan reason[s].” They specifically highlighted how the special counsel was appointed days following remarks by President Joe Biden, who said he would “mak[e] sure” Trump “can’t become the next president again.”

“’Normal order should prevail,’ the United States insisted in the district court. … But nothing about this prosecution has been normal,” the brief reads. “It should go without saying that interference with President Trump’s political campaign is not a legitimate reason to seek certiorari before judgment.”

Smith filed a separate brief with SCOTUS on Thursday, once again requesting the justices rule on Trump’s presidential immunity claims.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.