Current:Home > ScamsSpecial counsel Jack Smith asks Supreme Court to rule quickly on whether Trump can be prosecuted -Smart Capital Blueprint
Special counsel Jack Smith asks Supreme Court to rule quickly on whether Trump can be prosecuted
View
Date:2025-04-25 22:42:08
WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to take up and rule quickly on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results.
A federal judge ruled the case could go forward, but Trump, 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner, signaled he would ask the federal appeals court in Washington to reverse that outcome.
Smith is attempting to bypass the appeals court. The request filed Monday for the Supreme Court to take up the matter directly reflects Smith’s desire to keep the trial, currently set for March 4, on track and to prevent any delays that could push back the case until after next year’s presidential election.
“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” prosecutors wrote.
The earliest the court would consider the appeal would be Jan. 5, 2024, the date of the justices’ next scheduled private conference.
Underscoring the urgency for prosecutors in securing a quick resolution that can push the case forward, they wrote: “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”
At issue is a Dec. 1 ruling from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that rejected arguments by Trump’s lawyers that he was immune from federal prosecution. In her order, Chutkan, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, wrote that the office of the president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”
“Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”
If the justices get involved, they would have an opportunity to rule for the first time ever on whether ex-presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. Though there’s no such bar against prosecution for a former commander in chief, lawyers for Trump say that he cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president — a claim that prosecutors have vigorously rejected.
Smith’s team stressed that if the court did not expedite the matter, there would not be an opportunity to consider and resolve the question in the current term.
“The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request. This is an extraordinary case,” prosecutors wrote. “The Court should grant certiorari and set a briefing schedule that would permit this case to be argued and resolved as promptly as possible.”
Prosecutors are also asking the court to take up Trump’s claim, also already rejected by Chutkan, that he cannot be prosecuted in court for conduct for which he was was already impeached — and acquitted — before Congress.
Trump faces charges accusing him of working to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden before the violent riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol. He has denied any wrongdoing.
A Supreme Court case usually lasts several months, from the time the justices agree to hear it until a final decision. Smith is asking the court to move with unusual, but not unprecedented, speed.
Nearly 50 years ago, the justices acted within two months of being asked to force President Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office recordings in the Watergate scandal. The tapes were then used later in 1974 in the corruption prosecutions of Nixon’s former aides.
It took the high court just a few days to effectively decide the 2000 presidential election for Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.
veryGood! (5716)
Related
- Small twin
- Congress Launches Legislative Assault on Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan
- Michigan's abortion ban is blocked for now
- Woman facing charges for allegedly leaving kids in car that caught fire while she was shoplifting
- Who's hosting 'Saturday Night Live' tonight? Musical guest, how to watch Dec. 14 episode
- See the Best Dressed Stars Ever at the Kentucky Derby
- Jamie Foxx Breaks Silence After Suffering Medical Emergency
- Democrat Charlie Crist to face Ron DeSantis in Florida race for governor
- The FTC says 'gamified' online job scams by WhatsApp and text on the rise. What to know.
- Fumes from Petroleum Tanks in this City Never Seem to Go Away. What Are the Kids Here Breathing?
Ranking
- Federal hiring is about to get the Trump treatment
- Explosive Growth for LED Lights in Next Decade, Report Says
- A Longtime Days of Our Lives Star Is Leaving the Soap
- How realistic are the post-Roe abortion workarounds that are filling social media?
- The White House is cracking down on overdraft fees
- Spoiler Alert: A Paul Ryan-Led House Unlikely to Shift on Climate Issues
- Too Cozy with Coal? Group Charges Feds Are Rubber-Stamping Mine Approvals
- Hunger Games' Alexander Ludwig Welcomes Baby With Wife Lauren
Recommendation
The Grammy nominee you need to hear: Esperanza Spalding
Kim Kardashian’s SKIMS Has Mother’s Day Gifts Mom Will Love: Here Are 13 Shopping Editor-Approved Picks
Why stinky sweat is good for you
Why Pete Davidson's Saturday Night Live Episode Was Canceled
'Vanderpump Rules' star DJ James Kennedy arrested on domestic violence charges
California Makes Green Housing Affordable
Whatever happened to the caring Ukrainian neurologist who didn't let war stop her
Natural Gas Flaring: Critics and Industry Square Off Over Emissions