Special Counsel requests that the court allow Trump’s 2020 election lawsuit to go to trial

On Wednesday, Special Counsel Jack Smith petitioned the US Supreme Court to expeditiously allow the 2020 election interference case against former President Donald Trump to go to trial.

In response to a request by the Trump team earlier in the week, prosecutors decided to keep the case on hold while the court decides whether to address the issue of whether the former president is exempt from prosecution for official activities while in the White House. Trump requested the intervention of the top court after an overwhelming decision by two lower courts to reject that viewpoint.

One of the four criminal cases against Trump, the case has reached a turning point, and the Supreme Court’s next move could influence whether Trump is put on trial in Washington this year or whether the proceedings are postponed for several weeks or months of further arguments.

For both parties, the trial date—which has already been pushed back already due to Trump’s appeal of his immunity—is crucial. This year, prosecutors want to prosecute Trump, and his defense attorneys have been requesting postponements in his criminal cases. In the event that Trump is elected while the case is still ongoing, he may try to get a pardon for himself or use his power as head of the executive branch to compel the Justice Department to drop it.

Prosecutors answered to Trump’s plea in two days, despite the court’s deadline of next Tuesday, indicating their want to move forward swiftly.

The case has “unique national importance,” according to the prosecutors, who also stated that “delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict.” However, they did not specifically mention the November election or Trump’s position as the front-runner in the Republican primary in their filing.

They added, “There is a compelling national interest in resolving those charges without further delay.”

In August, Smith’s team accused Trump of attempting to rig the 2020 presidential election results, including by taking part in a plot to obstruct the electoral vote count in the lead-up to the riot at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the building and engaged in a violent altercation with police.

The alleged offenses are fundamental to our democracy. The last place to acknowledge a unique type of total immunity from federal criminal law should be the President’s alleged criminal conspiracy to rig an election and obstruct the orderly transition of power to his successor, they argued.

Since no other previous president has been charged, Trump’s attorneys have claimed that he is exempt from prosecution for actions that he took while performing official presidential responsibilities. This claim has never been put to the test in court.

A three-judge appeals panel last Thursday said, “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” rejecting the arguments made by the trial judge and subsequently by a federal appeals court.

Trump’s plea for immunity has essentially put a stop to the proceedings; U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan canceled the trial scheduled for March 4 while the appeals court deliberated the case. There’s no updated date yet.

Depending on the judges’ decision, Trump’s appeal and plea for the Supreme Court to intervene may result in more delays. Even before the appeals court stepped in, Smith and his team had requested the justices to consider and rule on the immunity question in December. However, the court turned down.

Prosecutors answered to Trump’s plea in two days, despite the court’s deadline of next Tuesday, indicating their want to move forward swiftly.

The case has “unique national importance,” according to the prosecutors, who also stated that “delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict.” However, they did not specifically mention the November election or Trump’s position as the front-runner in the Republican primary in their filing.

They added, “There is a compelling national interest in resolving those charges without further delay.”

In August, Smith’s team accused Trump of attempting to rig the 2020 presidential election results, including by taking part in a plot to obstruct the electoral vote count in the lead-up to the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the building and engaged in a violent altercation with police.

The alleged offenses are fundamental to our democracy. The last place to acknowledge a unique type of total immunity from federal criminal law should be the President’s alleged criminal conspiracy to rig an election and obstruct the orderly transition of power to his successor, they argued.

Since no other previous president has been charged, Trump’s attorneys have claimed that he is exempt from prosecution for actions that he took while performing official presidential responsibilities. This claim has never been put to the test in court.

A three-judge appeals panel last Thursday said, “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” rejecting the arguments made by the trial judge and subsequently by a federal appeals court.

Trump’s plea for immunity has essentially put a stop to the proceedings; U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan canceled the trial scheduled for March 4 while the appeals court deliberated the case. There’s no updated date yet.

Depending on the judges’ decision, Trump’s appeal and plea for the Supreme Court to intervene may result in more delays. Even before the appeals court stepped in, Smith and his team had requested the justices to consider and rule on the immunity question in December. However, the court turned down.

One of the Supreme Court’s alternatives is to deny the emergency appeal, allowing Chutkan to reopen the federal court trial in Washington. While it considers arguments on the immunity question, the court may potentially decide to prolong the delay. If the justices do agree with lower court decisions that Trump is not immune from prosecution, the timeline they establish may dictate when a trial starts.

Prosecutors asked the court to deny Trump’s request to hear the case on Wednesday, citing earlier rulings by lower courts that had denied the former president’s immunity as evidence of “how remote the possibility is that this Court will agree with his unprecedented legal position.”

However, Smith said that if the court is determined to make a decision, the justices need to hear arguments in March and provide a decision by the end of June.

Additionally, prosecutors refuted Trump’s claim that allowing the case to go forward would discourage future presidents from acting out of fear of being charged with a crime after leaving office and pave the way for politically driven lawsuits against past presidents.

The checks and balances included into our institutions and the Constitution’s structure are in direct opposition to that gloomy vision, they said. “Those safeguards guarantee that the criminal liability legal process won’t be subject to ‘political forces,’ as the applicant anticipates.”