19 Republican AGs line up with Trump to urge the Supreme Court not to go along with Jack Smith’s push for a rapid decision on immunity, calling it political ‘interference’ for ‘partisan interests’
A group of 19 Republican attorneys general wants the Supreme Court to take its time and let Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity from prosecution go through the normal appeals process — with his trial hanging in the balance during the campaign season.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and their states' other top law enforcement officials have blasted a dossier by Special Counsel Jack Smith as politically motivated, joining the former president accused of conspiring to to overturn elections in Smith's Jan. 6 case.
“It should go without saying that interference with President Trump's political campaign is not a legitimate reason to seek certiorari before judgment,” they said in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court on Thursday.
“The DOJ's attempt to expedite prosecution is blatantly partisan, and SCOTUS must reject it,” Missouri AG Andrew Bailey wrote in a post on X.
Their intervention is just the latest time state AGs have endorsed Trump. A group of seventeen secretaries of state famously asked the Supreme Court to rule in Trump's favor in December 2020, amid his election effort that Smith is prosecuting as a conspiracy to interfere with an official proceeding and disenfranchise voters.
Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are opposing special counsel Jack Smith's attempt to get an expedited review of his immunity claim. The issue could determine whether he faces trial before the presidential primaries
That effort was led by Texas AG Ken Paxton, who signed the latest filing.
Smith filed again Thursday in response to the Trump team, which wants the court to take its time rather than move on an accelerated schedule — which could yield a result before Americans go to the polls in November 2024.
'Respondent agrees that the question of whether a former President of the United States enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for a conspiracy to overturn an election and thereby prevent the lawful winner from taking power is a matter of great constitutional importance is,” Smith writes. comment on his introduction.
He says the Trump team's main argument in opposition is that the Court should wait. That is incorrect. An immediate review of this matter by the Court is the only way to achieve a timely and definitive resolution.”
“The public interest in a speedy resolution of this matter favors an immediate, final ruling from this Court. The allegations here are of the utmost importance. The nation has a compelling interest in deciding the defendant's claim for immunity,” Smith argues.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and other state AGs served the friend of the court brief
That came after Trump's lawyers urged the High Council to take no particular 'haste' in raising the issue of his claim to presidential immunity from prosecution – in a dossier that his 6 January case is working its way through lower courts.
Smith had asked the Supreme Court to hear the case on an emergency basis – reviewing the case even before an appeals court can hear the case.
The appeals court put Trump's planned March 4 trial on hold during the trial — sidelining a case with huge political implications at the start of the 2024 presidential primary process.
Trump's team is addressing what it calls the “rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon” and is pushing for a more normal procedure.
The special counsel, who regularly derides Trump as “deranged” in public statements, has “provided no compelling reason for the extraordinary haste he proposes,” according to the court. submit.
Lawyers for former President Donald Trump argued against 'rush' and asked the Supreme Court not to rush to appeal his claim of presidential immunity from prosecution
Special counsel Jack Smith, who filed the petition last month and who regularly attacks Trump online, said Trump's case “poses a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy” and asked the Supreme Court to bypass an appeals court to handle the case.
Rather than take up the case, Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors should give the U.S. Court a chance to examine the “momentous, historic issues” at stake. They even cite a lawsuit that invokes the cliché of 'haste is waste'.
'Interest does not automatically imply speed. The opposite is usually true. “New, complex, sensitive and historic issues – such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions – require more careful deliberation, not less,” they wrote.
They allege that the actions covered by his indictment — he is charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to disenfranchise voters, and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding as part of his election effort — were part of his official duties as president.
As such, he should be immune from prosecution, according to the letter, filed by Trump lawyers including John Lauro and Todd Blanche.
Trump, who faces multiple lawsuits, wants an appeals court to hear the case first, while his criminal trial in DC, set for March 4, has been put on hold
Trump attorneys John Lauro (l) and Todd Blanche (r) argued that “haste creates waste.” They had previously tried to delay Trump's trial until after the 2024 election
The high-profile case is just one in which the Supreme Court's stance could have an outsized impact on the 2024 presidential election. Trump's lawyers are planning an immediate appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's stunning ruling Tuesday that Trump should be disbarred from the mood in the state.
It agreed with a lower court's ruling that Trump had supported an insurrection, giving rise to the language of the 14th Amendment barring those engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the US from holding office. Trump's team denounced the decision, saying the language does not specifically apply to the president and labeling it a form of election interference.
Earlier this month, Smith asked the Supreme Court to conduct an expedited review of Trump's claim for special immunity from prosecution — in an effort to keep the former president's trial on track.
“It is of absolute public interest that Trump's immunity claims are resolved by this court and that Trump's trial proceeds as quickly as possible if his immunity claim is rejected,” Smith said.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who rejected Trump's immunity argument in her own ruling, set a trial for March 4, the day before Super Tuesday.
Judge Tanya Chutkan set a trial date of March 4. Smith's team says if the immunity claim makes it through the appeals court process, the Supreme Court may not even get around to it this term
Trump's lawyers appealed her decision, something Smith said “stays the trial of the charges against him.” He called it of “urgent public interest” to resolve the issue “as quickly as possible.”
Chutkan on December 1 rejected Trump's bid to dismiss the case, saying he found no legal support for his lawyers' position that former presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted for conduct related to their official responsibilities.
Smith said the case raises a fundamental question: “whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office, or constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when impeached but not convicted before criminal proceedings begin.”
Chutkan issued a 48-page opinion arguing against Trump's “absolute immunity” claim for alleged crimes during his time in office.
“Whatever immunity a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifetime 'get out of jail' pass,” she wrote.