Special Counsel Jack Smith, the prosecutor leading the federal election interference case against former US President Donald Trump, urged the US Supreme Court on Wednesday to deny Trump’s request to extend a stay on trial court proceedings. Trump asked the court to stay trial proceedings on the case before a DC district court on Monday so that he could file further appeals of a February 6 decision from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which denied the former president’s claim of “absolute” presidential immunity from the four criminal charges against him. Smith urged the court to reject Trump’s request for a stay and, if the court were to agree to hear an appeal on the issue, to do so under an expedited schedule.
In support of his opposition to Trump’s request to further extend a stay on trial court proceedings in the case, Smith cited to two arguments: (1) Trump cannot show he has a chance of success in appealing his immunity claim to the Supreme Court, and (2) Trump cannot “show that the balance of equities or the public interest favors continued delay of the criminal proceedings.”
Expanding upon his first argument, Smith pushed back against Trump’s claim that he could “easily satisf[y] [the court’s] traditional factors for granting a stay of the mandate.” Smith argued that Trump will be unable to convince the Supreme Court to support his claim of immunity and overturn the lower court’s decisions. Smith wrote:
The thorough opinions of the courts below considering and unanimously rejecting his arguments — and [Trump’s] failure to point to any Founding Era suggestion of such absolute immunity, any former President making such a claim, or even any scholarly commentary positing such immunity — underscore how remote the possibility is that this Court will agree with his unprecedented legal position.
Smith also cautioned the court against adopting Trump’s position on presidential immunity, writing that if the court were to adopt such a position, “it would upend understandings about Presidential accountability that have prevailed throughout history while undermining democracy and the rule of law.” Like Trump’s filing, some of the points made throughout Smith’s filing echoed similar assertions made by federal prosecutors before the DC Circuit and in Smith’s previous request for the Supreme Court to take up the issue on expedited review.
To his second argument, Smith focused on the impact any further stay could have on the American public. In doing so, Smith referred to the DC district court’s original decision to schedule the trial for March 4, so that the public would maintain their “right to a prompt and efficient resolution of this matter.” Since Trump began pursuing appeals of District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s December 1, 2023, denial of his claim of immunity, trial proceedings have been indefinitely stayed.
Smith claimed that any further delay in the trial proceedings would solely benefit the former president. While Trump does have a right to due process, Smith asserted that those interests are outweighed by the government and American public’s “compelling interest in a prompt disposition of the case.” Expanding upon this argument, Smith said:
Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power.
Smith also noted that the court previously refused his request to take up Trump’s claim of immunity on an expedited schedule. “To the extent that the denial reflects that this Court is not inclined to review [Trump’s] claim, no reason for a stay exists,” Smith said.
While the court did not give a reason for their earlier rejection of the appeal, Smith also reasoned that the court may have wanted the regular appellate process to play out through the DC Circuit. In that case, Smith requested that the court grant review of the issue on an expedited schedule. The reasoning here is two-fold: the public interest Smith referenced earlier in his filing and the fact that the court’s term is quickly coming to an end for the year. Because of that, Smith asked the court to hear oral arguments on the issue as soon as March.
The court now has the opportunity to consider whether they will hear the issue. Four of the nine justices must agree they want to hear the case to take up the appeal.
