Special counsel asks Supreme Court to decide whether Trump is immune from prosecution

Jack Smith, the special counsel who prosecuted former President Donald J. Trump on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, asked the Supreme Court on Monday to rule on Mr. Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution.

The request was unusual in two respects: Mr. Smith asked the justices to rule before an appeals court took action, and he urged them to act with exceptional speed.

“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: 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 begins,” Mr. Smith wrote.

He added that speed was essential as Mr Trump’s appeal against a trial judge’s ruling rejecting his claim to immunity suspends the trial of the charges against him. The trial is set to begin March 4 in Federal District Court in Washington.

The judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, rejected Trump’s sweeping claims that he enjoyed “absolute immunity” from the election interference charge because it was based on actions he took while in office.

In her ruling, she condemned his efforts to “take the reins of government” and said there was nothing in the law, the Constitution or American history to support the proposition that a former president should not be bound by federal law. criminal law.

Mr. Trump appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He also asked Judge Chutkan to freeze the election interference case in its entirety until the appeal was resolved.

In his letter to the Supreme Court, Mr. Smith conceded that the trial would most likely have to be paused because of the appeal of the immunity issue. That position changed the position his prosecutors took in court papers this weekend, in which they argued that Judge Chutkan should not stay the case pending the appeal.

Winning the appeal of the immunity decision was just one of Mr. Trump’s goals in challenging the decision. All the while, he and his lawyers have pursued an alternative strategy: delay the election interference process as long as possible.

If the trial were postponed until after the 2024 election and Mr. Trump won, he could simply have his attorney general dismiss the charges. Holding a trial after the presidential race would also mean voters would never hear any evidence prosecutors have collected about Trump’s extensive efforts to overturn the results of the last election before considering whether to re-elect him.

Even if Mr. Trump’s legal team cannot delay the trial until after the presidential race is decided, they hope to delay it until the heart of the campaign season in August or September. That would leave Judge Chutkan with a difficult decision: Should she bring the lawsuit at a time when Mr. Trump would have to hold rallies and meet voters and suffer what will surely be his vociferous complaints, or make the decision himself to postpone the process until later? is the race over?

Mr Smith urged judges to take swift action.

“It is of absolute public interest that the Defendant’s claims for immunity are resolved by this court and that the trial of the Defendant proceeds as expeditiously as possible if his claim for immunity is rejected,” Mr. Smith wrote.

He asked the court to use certiorari before sentencing, an unusual procedure to skip the appeals court. It is typically used in cases of national crises, such as President Richard M. Nixon’s refusal to turn over tape recordings to a special prosecutor.

As in the Nixon case, Mr. Smith wrote, “the circumstances warrant expedited proceedings.” He added: “The public importance of the issues, the threat to the scheduled trial date, and the need for prompt and final resolution of defendant’s attorney on immunity claims favor this court’s expedited review on this moment.”