Special counsel Jack Smith has requested that the Supreme Court expedite a ruling on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his alleged involvement in plots to overturn the results of the 2020 election. While a federal judge has allowed the case to proceed, Trump, who is currently the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential primary, has indicated that he will appeal this decision to the federal appeals court in Washington.
Smith, however, is aiming to bypass the appeals court and have the Supreme Court directly take up the matter. He hopes that this will ensure the trial, which is scheduled for March 4, remains on track and that no delays occur that could push the case beyond next year’s presidential election. The request submitted by Smith on Monday reflects his determination to secure a timely resolution to the case.
The central question at hand, according to prosecutors, is whether a former president is fully immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or if they are constitutionally protected from such prosecution if they have been impeached but not convicted prior to the start of criminal proceedings. This issue lies at the heart of our democracy.
The earliest possible date for the court to consider the appeal is January 5, 2024, coinciding with the justices’ next scheduled private conference. Prosecutors emphasize the urgency of resolving Trump’s claims of immunity, as it is crucial to push the case forward swiftly if his claim is rejected.
The case hinges on a ruling made on December 1 by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who dismissed Trump’s lawyers’ argument of immunity from federal prosecution. Judge Chutkan, appointed by President Barack Obama, stated that being a former president does not grant lifelong immunity from criminal liability. She affirmed that former presidents can indeed be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts committed while in office.
This development marks a significant step in the proceedings against Donald Trump and highlights the importance of upholding the principles of justice and accountability within our democratic system.
Supreme Court Could Rule on Whether Ex-Presidents Can Be Prosecuted
Legal experts say that if the Supreme Court decides to intervene, it would be the first time in history they rule on whether ex-presidents have immunity from prosecution. While the Department of Justice policy prevents the indictment of a sitting president, there is no such protection for former presidents. However, attorneys representing Donald Trump argue that he cannot be charged for actions taken during his time in office. Prosecutors strongly disagree with this claim.
To ensure prompt consideration and resolution of the matter, Smith’s legal team emphasizes the need for an expedited process. Recognizing the extraordinary nature of the case, prosecutors state that certiorari should be granted, and a briefing schedule should be set accordingly.
In addition, prosecutors are challenging Trump’s assertion, previously dismissed by Chutkan, that he cannot be prosecuted for conduct he was already impeached and acquitted for in Congress.
The charges against Trump stem from allegations that he attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden. These allegations gained further prominence following the violent riot carried out by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
Typically, a Supreme Court case takes several months from acceptance to final decision. However, Smith is requesting an expedited process, which, although not unprecedented, would require unusual speed.
Historically, the Supreme Court has responded quickly to significant cases. For instance, nearly 50 years ago, they acted within two months to compel President Richard Nixon to hand over the Watergate scandal recordings. These tapes were later utilized in the corruption prosecutions of Nixon’s former aides in 1974.
Furthermore, in a notable example of swift action, the high court effectively decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore in just a few days.