Jack Smith Reiterates Call for SCOTUS to Hear Trump Immunity Appeal

Special Counsel Jack Smith on Thursday once again urged the Supreme Court to bypass a federal appeals court and quickly hear an appeal as to whether former President Donald Trump has immunity in the 2020 election.

Smith’s filing comes one day after Trump’s legal team met its deadline to answer Smith’s first filing on Dec. 11, urging SCOTUS for an end-around the appellate process. At issue is whether Trump can be prosecuted on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results.

In their Wednesday filing, Trump’s lawyers urged the Supreme Court to “decline that invitation” from Smith and allow the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to next hear the appeal, asserting that Smith is pushing SCOTUS to “decide the issues with reckless abandon.”

Smith wants to keep his March 4 trial date, noting that the normal process would put that date in jeopardy.

“This Court’s immediate review of that question is the only way to achieve its timely and definitive resolution,” Smith wrote.

“The public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this Court,” Smith wrote in a subsequent passage. “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.”

Trump’s team accused Smith of having “partisan motivation” for the end-around. For his part, Smith said the case will end up before SCOTUS either way — might as well get to it now.

“Only this Court can provide the final word on his immunity defense,” Smith wrote in the filing.

The right to a speedy trial doesn’t exist for the federal government; it’s a constitutional right bestowed upon the defendant, former acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker told Newsmax last week.

“And for [Smith] to suggest that somehow, you know, his case deserves an expedited trial schedule and then an expedited appeal schedule of bypassing the appeals court, I think is really an aggressive and purely political move to try to interfere in the election,” Whitaker said.

SCOTUS made it clear on Dec. 11 that its “response does not mean the court will take up the case — only that it will consider the request in an expedited fashion.”

The back-and-forth began after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Dec. 1 rejected arguments by Trump’s lawyers that he was immune from federal prosecution.