Supreme Court is asked by Special Counsel to allow Trump’s 2020 election case
WASHINGTON (AP) — On Wednesday, special counsel Jack Smith implored the U.S. Supreme Court to expeditiously allow former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case to go to trial. In response to a request from the Trump team earlier in the week, prosecutors decided to keep the case on hold while the court decides whether to address the issue of whether the former president is exempt from prosecution for official acts while in the White House. Trump requested the intervention of the high court after an overwhelming decision by two lower courts to reject that position. A Few Attorneys for Trump May Be in Over Their Heads:” ‘Ludicrous’: Nikki Haley calls Bharara Trump’s plan to heavily tax Chinese goods. One of the four criminal cases against Trump, the case has reached a turning point, and the Supreme Court’s next move could influence whether Trump is tried in Washington this year or whether the proceedings will be delayed by more weeks or months of deliberations.
Importance of trail date of Supreme Court
Both sides place great importance on the trial date, which has already been delayed once due to Trump’s appeal for immunity. This year, prosecutors hope to prosecute Trump, and his defense attorneys have been requesting postponements in his criminal cases. In the event that Trump is elected while the case is still pending, he may try to get a pardon for himself or utilize his power as head of the executive branch to order the Justice Department to drop it. Both sides place great importance on the trial date, which has already been delayed once due to Trump’s appeal for immunity. This year, prosecutors hope to prosecute Trump, and his defense attorneys have been requesting postponements in his criminal cases. If Trump is elected while the case is still pending, he may try to get a pardon for himself or utilize his power as head of the executive branch to order the Justice Department to drop it. Prosecutors answered Trump’s appeal in two days, despite the court’s extension until next Tuesday, indicating their eagerness to move forward swiftly.
The case has “unique national importance,” according to the prosecutors, who also stated that “delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict.” However, they did not specifically mention the November election or Trump’s position as the front-runner in the Republican primary in their filing. “The national interest in resolving those charges without further delay is compelling,” they stated. In August, Smith’s team accused Trump of attempting to rig the 2020 presidential election results, including by taking part in a plot to obstruct the electoral vote count in the lead-up to the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the building and engaged in a violent altercation with police.
“The alleged offenses are at the core of our democratic system. The last place to acknowledge a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law should be the President’s alleged criminal scheme to rig an election and obstruct the orderly transition of power to his successor, they wrote. Since no other former president has been charged, Trump’s attorneys have claimed that he is exempt from prosecution for actions that he took while performing official presidential duties. This claim has never been put to the test in court. Last week, a three-judge appeals panel stated, “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.” Both the trial judge and a federal appeals court rejected those arguments.
One of the Supreme Court’s options is to deny the emergency appeal, allowing Chutkan to reopen the federal court trial in Washington. While it hears arguments on the immunity issue, the court may also decide to prolong the delay. If the justices do agree with lower court decisions that Trump is not immune from prosecution, the schedule they set may dictate when a trial starts. Invoking lower court rulings that denied the former president’s immunity, prosecutors urged the court to deny Trump’s petition to hear the case on Wednesday, stating that they “underscore how remote the possibility is that this Court will agree with his unprecedented legal position.”
However, Smith stated that if the court is determined to make a decision, the justices ought to hear arguments in March and render a decision by the end of June. Additionally, prosecutors refuted Trump’s claim that permitting the case to move forward would discourage future presidents from acting out of fear of being charged with a crime after leaving office and pave the way for politically driven lawsuits against former presidents. “That dystopian vision runs contrary to the checks and balances built into our institutions and the framework of the Constitution,” they stated. “Those guardrails ensure that the legal process for determining criminal liability will not be captive to ‘political forces,’ as applicant forecasts.”