Special counsel asks Supreme Court to decide whether Trump is immune from federal prosecution
Jack Smith, a special counsel, asked the Supreme Court to decide quickly on Monday whether Donald Trump was immune from prosecution by federal authorities for crimes committed during his tenure as president.
Smith filed a request with the Supreme Court asking the justices to make a ruling before a federal appellate court could weigh in. U.S. district judge Tanya Chutkan who presided over the case concerning the 2020 presidential elections ruled this month that Trump could not be shielded against criminal prosecution for actions allegedly committed while he served in the White House.
In a document filed with the district courts, the former president indicated that he intended to appeal Chutkan’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. The special counsel, however, wrote that the Supreme Court must resolve the matter once and for all.
Smith wrote: “It’s of paramount public importance that this Court resolve respondent’s claims of immunities and that respondent’s trial proceeds as quickly as possible if respondent’s claim of immunity has been rejected.” “Respondents’ claims are deeply mistaken, according to the district court.” Only this Court has the power to resolve them definitively.”
|
The Supreme Court decided later Monday to expedite the consideration of Smith’s petition and instructed Trump to respond to the petition no later than 4 p.m., on December 20.
Trump’s trial will begin on March 4, but the district court has requested that the proceedings be halted while he appeals. Former president Trump is charged with four counts of attempting to prevent the transfer of power from the presidency after the 2020 elections. He has denied all charges.
No one is above the law, which is a cornerstone of our constitution. Smith wrote that the force of this principle is at its peak when, as in this case, a federal grand jury accuses a former president committing federal crimes so as to undermine the peaceful transfer to his lawfully-elected successor”, Smith. “Nothing is more important to our democracy than holding a president accountable for criminal behavior who abuses the electoral process to stay in office.”
There are no more closed-door conferences scheduled for the justices before the year’s end, in which they will discuss what cases to hear. The next scheduled conference is Jan. 5. The next conference is scheduled for Jan. 5.
The special counsel suggested that the court allow Trump until December 18 to respond to the request. After this date, the justices would be “able to review the petition, response and any response at the earliest convenient time for the court.”
To take a case, a petition must be approved by four justices.
Trump’s Immunity Claim
Trump requested the district court to dismiss the charges filed by Smith in early October, arguing that he had presidential immunity for acts performed within his “outer perimeter”.
Trump’s attorneys, while stating that the former President “emphatically denied the truth of any accusations in the indictment”, argued that the acts that led to the charges were committed not only when he ran for president but also as the president in office — a distinction his legal team claimed shields him against prosecution.
Chutkan has rejected Trump’s attempts to dismiss the case based on immunity, and allowed it to proceed.
“Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass,” she wrote.
Chutkan stated that the former president “may be subjected to federal investigation, indictment prosecution, conviction and president for any crimes committed while in office.”
Last week, Trump’s lawyers informed the district court that he intended to appeal the order rejecting his motion for dismissal. Chutkan still hasn’t acted upon Trump’s request to pause the entire proceedings. Federal prosecutors urged Chutkan to reject this.
The Special Counsel’s Argument
Smith wrote in his request to Supreme Court that Trump’s claim that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution under the Constitution is not supported by its text, structure, and history.
The Supreme Court granted civil immunity to a president for actions that were taken in the “outer boundary” of his official duties, and the Justice Department had long maintained that a president in office could not be indicted. However, the special counsel stated, “these principles cannot be expanded to provide an absolute shield from criminal responsibility.”
Smith also asks the justices to take into consideration Trump’s argument, that he has constitutional protection from prosecution due to the fact that he was impeached and acquitted for the same conduct as alleged in his indictment. Chutkan rejected this claim.
The special counsel said that it is unclear whether the Supreme Court will be able decide immunity issues if the case against Trump goes through the normal or expedited appeals process. This term ends at the end of June.
The special counsel asked that the court postpone any action until after the D.C. Circuit issues its own decision. Circuit will issue its own decision.
“The United States acknowledges that this request is extraordinary. He said that this was an unusual case.
Smith’s filing was criticized by the Trump campaign in a later statement. The Trump campaign described Smith as “deranged,” and claimed that he “is trying to do a Hail Mary, racing to the Supreme Court to try to bypass the appeals process.”
“As President Trump said repeatedly, this prosecution has been completely political motivated. The statement stated that there was no other reason to bring this sham trial forward than to harm President Trump and the tens or millions of his fans. “President Trump is committed to fighting for justice and will oppose authoritarian tactics.”
Smith also asked D.C. Circuit to expedite Trump’s appeal of the district court’s order. Trump’s appeal against the district court order should be expedited by the Circuit Court.
To further the public’s interest in a speedy trial, the Government seeks a final and full resolution.
No Comments