High Court Drama – 19 States File Brief With Supreme Court Supporting Donald Trump Immunity Decision, Jack Smith Files Response

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow the legal arguments with presidential immunity to follow the traditional path through the appeals court [pdf court filing].  Special Prosecutor Jack Smith wants to sidestep the appeals court and go directly to the Supreme Court for resolution.

As noted by Politico, President Trump’s lawyers “repeatedly warning the justices to avoid “haste,” Trump’s lawyers skewered Smith for taking extraordinary steps to preserve the March 4, 2024, trial date without detailing why taking the case to a jury just over two months from now is so critical.”  In essence, Jack Smith is trying to force a fast trial on schedule to gain maximum interference with the GOP primary election, while Trump’s lawyers are calling him out for it.

Jack Smith filed a response to the Trump filing, again reasserting, “the public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves — for the first time in our nation’s history — criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office. And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election,” wrote Mr. Smith. “The nation has a compelling interest in a decision.”

Smith is worried the appeals court arguments and final decision will extend beyond the 2024 term of the Supreme Court, setting up a lengthy continuation of the DC case against Trump into October and November of 2024.   Trump’s team is saying the issues before the court are unprecedented and careful deliberation is needed.

To support the position of Donald Trump, 19 states filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court today [pdf Here].

[…] “In 234 years of American history, no President ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists. To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide.

This Court’s ordinary review procedures will allow the D.C. Circuit to address this appeal in the first instance, thus granting this Court the benefit of an appellate court’s prior consideration of these historic topics and performing the traditional winnowing function that this Court has long preferred. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has already granted highly expedited review of President Trump’s appeal over President Trump’s opposition, with briefing to be concluded by January 2, 2024, and oral argument scheduled for January 9, 2024.

The Special Counsel urges this Court to bypass those ordinary procedures, including the longstanding preference for prior consideration by at least one court of appeals, and rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon. The Court should decline that invitation at this time, for several reasons. (read more, pdf)

Making matters more complex for the high court to review, former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and law professors Steven G Calabresi and Gary S Lawson have filed a briefing as Amici Curiae (friend of the court, not connected to either party), [pdf HERE] challenging the legitimacy of the Biden appointed special counsel, Jack Smith.

[SOURCE]

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court wants to weigh in on these issues, they are going to have to respond. This is in addition to the Supreme Court ultimately having to determine how the insufferable Colorado Lawfare ruling is going to stand.

The Roberts led Supreme Court does not like issues involving the political dynamic; however, on these two issues they are likely going to have to choose. If they deny the Jack Smith request, the trial of Donald Trump could be delayed until the resolution of presidential immunity ultimately reaches them (after appellate court review). However, there is a strong possibility the appeals court will side with President Trump, and the appeal to SCOTUS will then come from Jack Smith. (read more)

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/USA%20v.%20Trump%20Amicus%20Filed.pdf

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/breaking-supreme-court-sends-jack-smith-packing-denies/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/trump-urges-scotus-reject-jack-smith-request-expedited/

https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/former-u-s-attorney-general-special-counsel-jack-smiths-appointment-is-unconstitutional-mhollow/