WASHINGTON (CN) — Special counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to decline Donald Trump’s attempt to delay proceedings in his D.C. trial after an appeals court loss on his presidential immunity defense.
“The nation has a compelling interest in seeing the charges brought to trial,” Smith wrote in his brief before the court.
Trump filed an emergency application on Monday asking the justices to block a ruling from the D.C. Circuit that would force him to face criminal charges that he undermined the results of the 2020 election and interfered with the peaceful transfer of presidential power.
The Supreme Court requested a response from Smith on Tuesday, setting Feb. 20 as his deadline to respond to Trump’s application. Smith, however, filed ahead of schedule, suggesting an urgency from the special counsel’s office to resolve the matter.
Smith told the Supreme Court that he wanted the justices to turn down Trump’s application, but he provided an alternate path if the court isn’t inclined to do so. The special counsel’s office said the court could also treat the application as a certiorari petition and grant an expedited review of the merits of Trump’s case. The Supreme Court took a similar path in its review of a Colorado ruling removing Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot.
Trump faces four criminal charges out of D.C.: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.
Prosecutors claim Trump knew he lost the 2020 election but tried to overturn the results anyway. Smith said Trump schemed to create fake electoral votes, tried to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence to certify the fraudulent votes and then sent his supporters to the Capitol to obstruct the vote when Pence declined. Prosecutors also accuse Trump of taking advantage of the chaos of Jan. 6, 2021, to advance his election subversion efforts.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all of these charges and claims he is immune from prosecution under Nixon v. Fitzgerald. The 1982 case found that Richard Nixon did not have to face civil charges from an employee over actions he took as president.
Trump’s case differs from Nixon’s because Trump is facing criminal charges. Prosecutors also claim his actions did not fall under the official duties of the president.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected this defense and the D.C. Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court already declined one emergency application in this case, refusing to review Smith’s initial application. Smith had asked the justices to review the matter before the appeal court could but the justices declined.
Now Smith wants the justices to decline Trump’s application, claiming he does not meet the requirements for a pause.
To receive a stay, emergency applicants must prove that four justices would grant certiorari, the majority of the court would reverse the judgment from the lower court, and without assistance, the petitioner would face irreparable harm.
Smith said the court is unlikely to reverse the D.C. Circuit’s ruling and the government is the one facing harm.
“The stay equities do not favor applicant,” Smith wrote. “His personal interest in postponing trial proceedings must be weighed against two powerful countervailing considerations: the government’s interest in fully presenting its case without undue delay; and the public’s compelling interest in a prompt disposition of the case.”
Trump claims his D.C. trial will interfere with his 2024 presidential campaign, violating the First Amendment rights of millions of voters. Smith argued it was Trump’s actions to disenfranchise voters in the 2020 election that will force him to face charges in D.C.
“To the contrary, the charges here involve applicant’s alleged efforts to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters,” Smith wrote. “The national interest in resolving those charges without further delay is compelling.”
The former president said his case will set an important precedent for the prosecution of future holders of the executive office. Smith cited the slew of institutional guardrails intended to block such cases to refute this claim.
“That dystopian vision runs contrary to the checks and balances built into our institutions and the framework of the Constitution,” Smith wrote. “Those guardrails ensure that the legal process for determining criminal liability will not be captive to ‘political forces,’ as applicant forecasts.”
Smith characterized Trump’s attempt to avoid prosecution as a subversion of democratic principles.
“The proposition that a former President is immune from federal criminal liability for conduct that would overturn his electoral defeat contravenes bedrock constitutional principles and threatens democracy itself,” Smith wrote. “Applicant never acknowledges the constitutional cost of insulating a former president from criminal accountability for that conduct.”
Smith asked the court to resolve this case by March.
Trump will have an opportunity to file a response to Smith’s application. The justices will then issue a decision on the application.
Follow @KelseyReichmann
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
