Jack Smith says Supreme Court must decide Trump’s immunity case by June

Special counsel Jack Smith told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the only way to assure the justices determine if former President Donald Trump is protected from federal prosecution through presidential immunity this term is to hear the case ahead of the appeals court in Washington.

If the justices let the process work its way through its normal course, Mr. Smith and Mr. Trump’s legal team would make arguments in January before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington. Then they would wait for a ruling from the appeals court before filings with the justices for an appeal — a process that could take months.

The problem, as Mr. Smith sees it, is that the justices stop hearing cases in April for its current term and wrap up rulings by the end of June. He’s trying to keep his March 4 trial against Mr. Trump for election fraud on track.

“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.”

If the justices don’t take up the dispute this term, it could kick the issue to October, when they return from summer recess, potentially delaying the trial until the Nov. 5 election.

Mr. Smith, in Thursday’s legal filing, told the justices the high court has expedited cases ahead of judgment from a court of appeals in prior cases such as United States v. Nixon, when the justices in 1974 said the president was not immune from subpoenas and civil actions.

The high court, though, has never weighed the issue of presidential immunity for criminal charges.

“[Mr. Trump’s] assertion … that immediate review is not warranted runs counter to the principle that in all criminal cases, the public interest in a speedy and fair trial is [of] paramount value,” Mr. Smith wrote.

The filing comes after Mr. Trump’s attorneys told the high court Wednesday not to rush its decision.

The lawyers said the justices should allow the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to first weigh their case, specifically if absolute immunity extends to the president even for official duties on the “outer parameter” of his responsibilities and if Mr. Trump’s 2021 impeachment and acquittal by the Senate serve as double jeopardy for alleged crimes stemming from the Jan. 6 attack at the Capitol.

They said an unprecedented case such as this — weighing if a president can face criminal charges for official acts — shouldn’t be decided at “breakneck speed” due to “partisan motivation.”

“Every jurisdiction and prudential consideration calls for this court to allow the appeal to proceed first in the D.C. Circuit. ‘Haste makes waste’ is an old adage. It has survived because it is right so often,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote.

They added, “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.”

Mr. Trump made the immunity claim against charges of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy against the right to vote. The charges stem from his efforts against what he called a rigged 2020 election.

Mr. Trump’s filing on Wednesday was in response to Mr. Smith last week asking the justices to fast-track a decision on the presidential immunity issues, skipping a decision by a federal appeals court.

In an 81-page filing, Mr. Smith said the issue is critical to democracy and the high court must settle the question of whether Mr. Trump is immune from federal prosecution for crimes he allegedly committed while president.

Mr. Smith went around the D.C. Circuit Court hoping the justices would answer the question before the appeals panel took it up. It would take four justices to vote in favor of hearing the dispute.

A federal judge in Washington ruled against Mr. Trump’s claim of presidential immunity. The case, though, has been put on hold until the issue of presidential immunity is settled.

Any delay could benefit Mr. Trump politically, as he doesn’t want to be on trial at the height of his presidential campaign ahead of the election.

Traditionally, a Supreme Court case takes months to resolve. A request to expedite it as Mr. Smith has made, though, is not unprecedented. The Associated Press noted that 50 years ago the court acted on United States v. Nixon within two months. It also took just three days to decide Bush v. Gore in 2000.