Nearly 20 state attorneys general filed a legal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request that the high court expeditiously rule on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution.
“[T]he special counsel is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to jump into the fray. But he gives no reason why the public interest demands a rushed trial, which suggests the real reason is to swing the presidential election,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a statement. “The Court should not play along. As our brief points out, in asking for this extraordinary remedy, without giving any reason for why it is warranted, the special counsel’s petition itself is strong evidence of a political prosecution designed to decide the 2024 election.”
Smith — who brought “legally flawed and politically shady” charges against Trump for contesting the 2020 election results in August — requested earlier this month that SCOTUS bypass the appellate process and rule on whether the former president enjoys lifelong immunity from prosecution. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee with a track record of political rulings, previously denied Trump’s claims on the subject, prompting his legal team to file an appeal with the D.C. Court of Appeals.
If SCOTUS were to rule in Smith’s favor, it would essentially allow the special counsel to accelerate Trump’s trial, which is currently set for this upcoming March, and likely obtain a conviction ahead of the 2024 election cycle.
With the high court having since agreed to “fast-track its consideration of whether to hear the case,” Marshall and 18 other state attorneys general are taking legal action to support Trump before SCOTUS. In their legal brief, the AGs voiced opposition to Smith’s request and noted how the special counsel never explains in its filing why “[i]t is of imperative public importance” that SCOTUS expeditiously rule on Trump’s claims regarding presidential immunity or why the former president’s trial should “proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”
The special counsel “never explains why waiting a few additional months for the Court of Appeals to decide this issue would damage the public interest,” the brief reads. “Instead, the United States offers only a tautology: if the Court agrees to review the case sooner, it can review the case sooner. That is no reason to justify the prosecution’s ‘extraordinary request.'”
The AGs further detailed how Smith’s lack of reasoning explaining why SCOTUS should fast-track a decision on Trump’s claims suggests the Justice Department’s actions are based on “partisan reason[s].” They specifically highlighted how the special counsel was appointed days following remarks by President Joe Biden, who said he would “mak[e] sure” Trump “can’t become the next president again.”
“’Normal order should prevail,’ the United States insisted in the district court. … But nothing about this prosecution has been normal,” the brief reads. “It should go without saying that interference with President Trump’s political campaign is not a legitimate reason to seek certiorari before judgment.”
Smith filed a separate brief with SCOTUS on Thursday, once again requesting the justices rule on Trump’s presidential immunity claims.
