WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court refused on Friday to jump into an appellate court fight over Donald Trump’s immunity against criminal charges connected to efforts to overturn the 2020 election before the D.C. Circuit can review the matter.
In early December special counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, with the hope that the justices' intervention would prevent a delay to Trump's Washington trial, set to begin in March 2024.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said Trump’s absolute immunity claims would give the former president a lifelong get-out-of-jail-free pass to which he was not entitled. After the judge rejected his claim Trump immediately appealed the ruling.
A Supreme Court appeal was likely no matter how the D.C. Circuit decided.
Smith argued the need to resolve a question of high public interest quickly was a good enough reason for the justices to skip the lower court review.
“This case involves an issue of exceptional national importance: the amenability to federal prosecution of a former president of the United States for conduct undertaken during his presidency and the effect, if any, that his acquittal in impeachment proceedings has on this federal prosecution,” the government’s motion to expedite says.
Trump faces four criminal counts for his role in election interference efforts, culminating on Jan. 6, 2021, with the Capitol riot. The charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.
The timing of Trump’s trial for those charges is key, since he is running for executive office again in 2024. Allowing the March trial date to proceed would allow voters to know if the man they are casting a vote for is a convicted criminal.
Although Supreme Court cases typically take months, if not years, to be resolved, there is precedent for a speedy review of a high profile case like Trump’s. The high court took similar action for another former president, Richard Nixon, to decide if Watergate prosecutors could obtain Oval Office recordings.
Trump’s immunity defense draws on another Supreme Court ruling from his predecessor, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which granted Nixon immunity from a civil suit lodged by a government employee. Fitzgerald, however, granted Nixon immunity only from civil suits directly linked to his role as the country’s chief executive.
Trump would need the Supreme Court to interpret Fitzgerald to stretch to criminal charges and convince a court that his election interference actions were part of his job as president.
Trump discouraged the justices from speeding up the review of the issue, suggesting that doing so would skip important procedural steps.
“‘This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy,’ — whether a president may be criminally prosecuted for his official acts,” wrote D. John Sauer, an attorney with the James Otis Law Group representing Trump. “The ‘paramount public importance’ of that question, calls for it to be resolved in a cautious, deliberative manner — not at breakneck speed.”
The justices did not provide an explanation for their ruling.
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.
