In a recent development in the legal battle over President Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity, special counsel Jack Smith has swiftly responded to Trump's request for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. The request was made in an attempt to place a hold on a scathing appeals court decision that concluded Trump does not have immunity to protect him from the federal election subversion case brought forward by Jack Smith.
Smith wasted no time in his response, asking the Supreme Court to reject the 'novel theory of absolute presidential immunity' put forth by Trump. He argued that Trump does not have a realistic probability of succeeding on his immunity claim and emphasized the importance of a speedy trial due to the charges striking at the heart of democracy. Smith further described the case as having unique national importance and requested the Court to schedule arguments in March, urging a prompt decision and expediting the proceedings.
The question now is how long the Supreme Court will take to provide guidance on the matter as the timing is crucial. Trump seeks to delay the case until after the November election, while Smith aims for a trial prior to the election.
This filing by the special counsel is considered his best and potentially final effort to pursue the trial court proceedings before the election. Smith's primary argument is that Trump will not succeed on the merits of the case, signaling to the Supreme Court that they should not take it up.
In addition to this development, there is another significant legal case unfolding this week involving Trump. The Manhattan District Attorney has brought criminal charges related to hush money payments made by Trump to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016. Although it was initially expected that this case would be pushed back due to the scheduled Jack Smith case on March 4th, with the delay in the proceedings, the hush money case could potentially become the first criminal trial faced by the former President.
The likelihood of the Supreme Court accepting this case remains uncertain. It takes four justices to grant certiorari and take up the case, while five justices are needed to maintain the pause in the district court. Analysts suggest that the decision could be a close call, with some conservative justices possibly in favor of taking the case.
If the Supreme Court does decide to take on the case, it would result in a delay, causing the trial to potentially commence in mid to late summer, if not later. The considerations for the justices extend beyond the specific circumstances of Trump's case, as they may also weigh the need to establish binding law on the issue of presidential immunity.
As we await further updates, the Supreme Court's ruling will hold significant implications for both Trump and the special counsel's case, determining the course of the trial and its timing in the coming months.
