Special Counsel Jack Smith recently hit back at former President Donald Trump’s motion to delay the Supreme Court’s review of his criminal immunity claim in a scathing filing via Mediaite.
It has been noted that last week, the Supreme Court agreed to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request they take up the issue of presidential immunity after Judge Tanya Chutkan denied two motions to dismiss from Trump’s team, based on First Amendment and presidential immunity claims.
Trump and his lawyers responded with a filing demanding the Court wait until the lower appeals court rules on the issue.
On Thursday, Smith filed a scathing response opposing Trump’s motion, writing:
Respondent agrees that the important constitutional question in this case will require this Court’s review. But he maintains that the Court should wait for the appellate process to unfold below so that this Court has the benefit of the court of appeals’ decision. Br. in Opp. 17-21. That suggestion is misguided. 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. The Nation has a compelling interest in a decision on respondent’s claim of immunity from these charges—and if they are to be tried, a resolution by conviction or acquittal, without undue delay.
Given respondent’s categorical immunity claim over every act alleged in the indictment—all of which, he contends, fall within the outer perimeter of his “official” duties, see Br. in Opp. 8, 16—this Court’s review is essential to allow this case to move forward. Only this Court can provide the final word on his immunity defense. Certiorari before judgment will allow the Court to set a schedule for briefing and argument to assure that respondent’s immunity claim will be resolved as expeditiously as possible.
He also pointed out at least one pretty glaring flaw in Trump’s filing:
Respondent’s other arguments provide no sound reason to deny immediate review. He asserts that the government lacks standing to bring an appeal. But the government is not seeking to appeal the district court’s order. Respondent himself has appealed that order.
Smith concluded:
Finally, respondent’s claims about the reasons why the government is seeking review are unfounded and incorrect. See Br. in Opp. 21-24. Respondent stands accused of serious crimes because the grand jury followed the facts and applied the law. The government seeks this Court’s resolution of the immunity claim so that those charges may be promptly resolved, whatever the result.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the petition, the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment should be granted.
