Special counsel asks Supreme Court to let Trump’s 2020 election case proceed to trial without delay
WASHINGTON — Special counsel Jack Smith urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to let former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case go to trial without further delay.
Prosecutors responded to a request from the Trump team earlier this week asking for a continued pause in the case as the court considers whether to answer the question of whether the former president is immune from prosecution for official actions in the White House. Two lower courts have overwhelmingly rejected that position, prompting Trump to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
The case — one of four criminal charges Trump faces — has reached a critical juncture, where the Supreme Court’s next move could help determine whether Trump faces trial in Washington this year or whether the proceedings will be subject to weeks or months of additional investigation. postponed. arguments.
The date of the trial, which has already been postponed once by Trump’s immunity request, is of utmost importance for both sides. Prosecutors want to put Trump on trial this year, while lawyers seek a delay in his criminal cases. If Trump were to be elected while the case is still pending, he could presumably use his authority as head of the executive branch to order the Justice Department to dismiss the case, or he could possibly try to pardon himself.
Reflecting their desire to move quickly, prosecutors responded to Trump’s appeal within two days, even though the court had given them until next Tuesday.
Although their filing does not explicitly mention the upcoming November election or Trump’s status as the Republican frontrunner, prosecutors described the case as of “unique national importance” and said “delays in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest. to a quick and fair judgment.”
“The national interest in resolving these charges without further delay is compelling,” they wrote.
Smith’s team accused Trump in August of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, including by engaging in a scheme to disrupt the counting of electoral votes ahead of the January 6, 2021 riot in the US Capitol. when his supporters stormed the building in a violent confrontation with police.
“The crimes charged strike at the core of our democracy. “A president’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a new form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law,” they wrote.
Trump’s lawyers have argued that he is protected from prosecution for actions within his official duties as president — a legally untested argument since no other former president has been charged.
The judge and then a federal appeals court rejected those arguments, with a three-judge appeals panel saying last week: “We cannot accept that the office of president places its former residents above the law forever afterward.”
The proceedings have been effectively frozen by Trump’s immunity appeal, with U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan canceling a March 4 trial date while the appeals court was hearing the case. No new date has been set.
Trump’s appeal and the request for the Supreme Court to get involved could cause further delays, depending on what the justices decide. In December, Smith and his team had urged the justices to take up the immunity issue and make a decision before the appeals court had ruled. But the court refused.
The Supreme Court’s options include dismissing the emergency appeal, which would allow Chutkan to resume trial proceedings in Washington federal court. The court could also extend the delay while it hears arguments on the immunity issue. In that case, the schedule the justices set could determine how quickly a trial could begin, if they indeed agree with lower courts’ rulings that Trump is not immune from prosecution.
On Wednesday, prosecutors urged the court to deny Trump’s petition to hear the case, saying lower court opinions rejecting immunity for the former president “underline how remote the possibility is that this Court agrees with its unprecedented legal position.”
But if the court wants to decide the case, Smith said, the justices would have to hear arguments in March and issue a final ruling by the end of June.
Prosecutors have also pushed back against Trump’s argument that allowing the case to proceed could chill the actions of future presidents, fearing they could face criminal charges once they leave office and open the door to politically motivated cases against former commanders-in-chief.
“That dystopian vision runs counter to the checks and balances built into our institutions and the framework of the Constitution,” they wrote. “These guardrails ensure that the legal process for establishing criminal liability will not be in the hands of ‘political forces’, as the applicant predicts.”