Trump tells Supreme Court to slow down decision on ‘presidential immunity’ in election conspiracy case

Attorneys urge the court to reject Jack Smith’s request to review the former president’s claims

Attorneys for Donald Trump have urged the US Supreme Court to reject an attempt to quickly hear a challenge of his “presidential immunity” defence on charges connected to his attempts to overturn 2020 presidential election results.

A filing with the nation’s highest court on Wednesday responds to a request from special counsel Jack Smith to expedite consideration of the former president’s “immunity” claim in a federal election conspiracy case that Mr Trump wants thrown out.

The federal judge overseeing that case has rejected those arguments, and Mr Trump has vowed to appeal. But prosecutors turned to the Supreme Court for a definitive answer to determine “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.”

On Wednesday, Mr Trump’s attorneys told the Supreme Court to reject their request and accused prosecutors of trying to “bypass” their appeal.

His attorneys argued that the special counsel “identifies no compelling reason for the extraordinary haste he proposes.”

“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy … whether a president may be criminally prosecuted for his official acts,” they wrote. “The ‘paramount public importance’ of that question … calls for it to be resolved in a cautious, deliberative manner – not at breakneck speed.

“Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists,” they continued. “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.”

The former president’s attorneys also claimed that the special counsel has a “partisan interest” to keep Mr Trump restrained by his criminal prosecutions during the 2024 election.

His attorneys write that Mr Smith “never explains” why prosecutors want to adhere to a 4 March, 2024 trial date, which Mr Trump’s attorneys claim has “no talismanic significance”.

But the longer the delays, the more likely the case would extend well past 2024. And should Mr Trump win the election, he could order the US Department of Justice to shut it down.

On 1 December, the federal judge overseeing the case ruled that Mr Trump’s one term in office did not bestow on him “the divine right of kings” to evade criminal accountability.

“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,’” wrote US District Judge Tanya Chutkan. “A former President’s exposure to federal criminal liability is essential to fulfilling our constitutional promise of equal justice under the law.”

Federal prosecutors told the Supreme Court this month that such liability is a “cornerstone” of constitutional law.

“Nothing could be more vital to our democracy than that a President who abuses the electoral system to remain in office is held accountable for criminal conduct,” according to federal prosecutors. “Yet respondent has asserted that the Constitution accords him absolute immunity from prosecution. The Constitution’s text, structure, and history lend no support to that novel claim.”

A grand jury indictment charges Mr Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

Prosecutors have argued that the former president relied on knowingly false claims about the election to pressure state officials to approve fraudulent slates of electors to obstruct the certification of the results, then attempted to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse the outcome, and, ultimately, failed to dissuade a mob of his supporters from breaking into the US Capitol.

The Supreme Court’s consideration of a principle argument in the case would mark the first time that the nation’s highest court has weighed in on his criminal prosecutions.

Mr Trump’s campaign has also vowed to appeal an historic decision from the Colorado Supreme Court that disqualifies him from state ballots in 2024 because of his role in the January 6 attack.

A ruling from the state’s highest court on Tuesday cites his ineligibility under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits candidates who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office.