Lawyers for Donald Trump urged the Supreme Court not to show any particular “haste” in taking up the issue of his claim of presidential immunity from prosecution — in a filing that could allow his Jan. 6 case to move on to lower courts.
The filing comes after Special Prosecutor Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to hear the case on an emergency basis – reviewing the case even before an Appeals Court can hear the case.
The appeals court put Trump’s planned March 4 trial on hold during the trial — sidelining a case with huge political implications at the start of the 2024 presidential primary process.
Trump’s team is addressing what it calls the “rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon” and is pushing for a more normal procedure.
The special counsel, who regularly derides Trump as “deranged” in public statements, has “provided no compelling reason for the extraordinary haste he proposes,” according to the court. submit.
Lawyers for former President Donald Trump argued against ‘rush’ and asked the Supreme Court not to rush to appeal his claim of presidential immunity from prosecution
Rather than take up the case, Trump’s lawyers argue that prosecutors should give the U.S. Court a chance to examine the “momentous, historic issues” at stake. They even cite a lawsuit that invokes the cliché of ‘haste is waste’.
‘Interest does not automatically imply speed. The opposite is usually true. “New, complex, sensitive and historic issues – such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions – require more careful deliberation, not less,” they wrote.
They allege that the actions covered by his indictment — he is charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to disenfranchise voters, and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding as part of his election effort — were part of his official duties as president.
As such, he should be immune from prosecution, according to the letter, filed by Trump lawyers including John Lauro and Todd Blanche.
Trump, who faces multiple lawsuits, wants an appeals court to hear the case first, while his criminal trial in DC, set for March 4, has been put on hold
Trump attorneys John Lauro (l) and Todd Blanche (r) argued that “haste creates waste.” They had previously tried to delay Trump’s trial until after the 2024 election
Special counsel Jack Smith, who filed the petition last month and who regularly attacks Trump online, said Trump’s case “poses a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy” and asked the Supreme Court to bypass an appeals court to handle the case.
The high-profile case is just one in which the Supreme Court’s stance could have an outsized impact on the 2024 presidential election. Trump’s lawyers are planning an immediate appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s stunning ruling Tuesday that Trump should be disbarred from the mood in the state.
It agreed with a lower court’s ruling that Trump had supported an insurrection, giving rise to the language of the 14th Amendment barring those engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the US from holding office. Trump’s team denounced the decision, saying the language does not specifically apply to the president and labeling it a form of election interference.
Earlier this month, Smith asked the Supreme Court to conduct an expedited review of Trump’s claim for special immunity from prosecution — in an effort to keep the former president’s trial on track.
“It is of absolute public interest that Trump’s immunity claims are resolved by this court and that Trump’s trial proceeds as quickly as possible if his immunity claim is rejected,” Smith said.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who rejected Trump’s immunity argument in her own ruling, set a trial for March 4, the day before Super Tuesday.
Judge Tanya Chutkan set a trial date of March 4. Smith’s team says if the immunity claim makes it through the appeals court process, the Supreme Court may not even get around to it this term
Trump’s lawyers appealed her decision, something Smith said “stays the trial of the charges against him.” He called it of “urgent public interest” to resolve the issue “as quickly as possible.”
Chutkan on December 1 rejected Trump’s bid to dismiss the case, saying he found no legal support for his lawyers’ position that former presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted for conduct related to their official responsibilities.
Smith said the case raises a fundamental question: “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 begin.”
Chutkan issued a 48-page opinion arguing against Trump’s “absolute immunity” claim for alleged crimes during his time in office.
“Whatever immunity a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifetime ‘get out of jail’ pass,” she wrote.