Special Counsel Jack Smith called Trump’s opposition to having the Supreme Court quickly consider a central question in his election interference case “misguided” in Thursday’s court filing.
Trump’s lawyers opposed Smith’s request for the justices to rule on his bid to dismiss the case based on presidential immunity before allowing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to weigh in, writing in a filing Wednesday that the special counsel’s rushed timeline gives the appearance of “partisan motivation.” Smith replied in a 14-page filing Thursday by again appealing to the public’s interest in a “prompt resolution” of the issue by the Supreme Court.
“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,” Smith’s filing states. “And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election.”
“The Nation has a compelling interest in a decision on respondent’s claim of immunity from these charges—and if they are to be tried, a resolution by conviction or acquittal, without undue delay,” he continued.
Fully briefed, the Court could now decide on Smith’s request at any time.
District Judge Tanya Chutkan declined to dismiss Trump’s case based on presidential immunity on Dec. 1. The former president appealed her ruling to the D.C. Circuit, which he wants to consider the question before the Supreme Court.
Trump’s lawyers argued Wednesday that Smith “confuses the public interest with a partisan interest of his superior, President Biden.”
“The current potential trial date of March 4, 2024, falls the day before Super Tuesday, one of the most critical dates of the Republican primary calendar,” they wrote. “Further, the Special Counsel’s insistence that this Court decide the immunity question ‘during its current Term,’ reflects the evident desire to schedule President Trump’s potential trial during the summer of 2024— at the height of the election season.”
Smith also dismissed Thursday an argument that he lacks authority as special counsel to petition the court or prosecute Trump in the first place, which was raised by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and other law professors in an amicus brief. He said the Court does not “generally entertain arguments that were not raised below and are not advanced in this Court by any party.”
“Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices,” the amicus brief filed Wednesday argued. “Neither Smith nor the position of Special Counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria.”
All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Jack Smith, Fani Willis forced to defend Trump prosecutions in simultaneous testimonies - December 18, 2025
- Exclusive: Biden State Dept. appeared to ignore emails from would-be Trump assassin - December 16, 2025
- Trump DOJ seeks to block officials from testifying in Judge Boasberg probe - December 12, 2025
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
