Lawyers for Donald Trump urged the Supreme Court to take no special ‘haste’ by taking up the issue of his claim of presidential immunity from prosecution – in a filing that would allow his January 6 case to wind its way through lower courts.
The filing comes after Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the high court to take up the matter on an emergency basis – judging the matter even before an Appeals Court is able to consider it.
The appeal has put Trump’s scheduled March 4 Trump trial on hold during the process – tying up a case with massive political implications that has been slotted early in the 2024 presidential primary process.
Trump’s team strikes out at what it calls the ‘rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon,’ and urges a more ordinary procedure.
The special counsel, who Trump regularly derides as ‘deranged’ in public pronouncements, has stated ‘no compelling reason for the extraordinary haste he proposes,’ according to the court filing.
Lawyers for former President Donald Trump argued against ‘haste’ and asked the Supreme Court not to rush to take up an expedited appeal of his claim of presidential immunity from prosecution
Instead of taking up the case, Trump’s lawyers argue that prosecutors should allow the U.S. Court to consider the ‘momentous, historic questions’ at stake. They even cite a court case that invokes the cliche of ‘haste makes waste.’
‘Importance does not automatically necessitate speed. If anything, the opposite is usually true. Novel, complex, sensitive, and historic issues – such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts – call for more careful deliberation, not less,’ they wrote.
They argue that the actions invoked by his indictment – he is charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S., conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding as part of his election overturn effort – were part of his official duties as president.
As such, he should be immune from prosecution for it, according to the brief, filed by Trump lawyers including John Lauro and Todd Blanche.
Trump, who is facing multiple trials, wants an appeals court to take up the matter first, while his criminal trial in D.C. set for March 4 is on hold
Trump lawyer John Lauro (l) and Todd Blanche (r) argued that ‘haste makes waste.’ They had earlier sought to delay Trump’s trial until after the 2024 election
Special counsel Jack Smith, who filed the petition last month and who Trump regularly attacks online, said Trump’s case ‘presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy’ and asked the Supreme Court to bypass an appeals court to hear the matter
The high-profile case is just one where the Supreme Court’s posture 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 disqualified from the state’s ballot.
It agreed with a lower court’s ruling that Trump had backed an insurrection, which triggered the 14th Amendment’s language barring those of have engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the U.S. from holding office. Trump’s team blasted the decision and said the language does not specifically apply to the president, branding it a form of election inteference.
Earlier this month, Smith has asked the Supreme Court to conduct an expedited review of Trump’s claim to special immunity from prosecution – in a move to keep the former president’s trial on track.
‘It is of imperative public importance that (Trump’s) claims of immunity be resolved by this court and that (Trump’s) trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,’ Smith said.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who rejected Trump’s immunity argument in her own ruling, has set a trial for March 4, the day before Super Tuesday.
Judge Tanya Chutkan set a March 4 trial date. Smith’s team says if the immunity claim goes through the appeals court process, the Supreme Court might not even get to it this term
Trump’s lawyers appealed her decision, something Smith said ‘suspends the trial of the charges against him.’ He called it of ‘imperative public importance’ to resolve the matter ‘as promptly as possible.’
Chutkan on Dec. 1 rejected Trump’s bid to dismiss the case, finding no legal support for the position argued by his lawyers that former presidents cannot face criminal charges for conduct related to their official responsibilities.
Smith’s filing says the case poses a fundamental question: ‘whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.’
Chutkan issued a 48-page opinion arguing against Trump’s ‘absolute immunity’ claim for alleged crimes while in office.
‘Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong “get-out-of-jail-free” pass,’ she wrote.