Last week, as Spencer covered, Special Counsel Jack Smith made a rather large request of the U.S. Supreme Court, as he asked the justices to rule on whether former and potentially future President Donald Trump has immunity. While the Court agreed to grant an expedited review of the cert petition, an announcement came on Friday that the Court would not be taking up the case.
It was a rather curious request from Smith, who was looking to bypass the appeals court, given that that court is still considering a motion from Trump to dismiss his case. Attorney Alan Dershowitz, who has spoken out against Smith bringing forth such indictments, recently highlighted how particularly absurd the request was. Dershowitz told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo last week that it was "remarkable that somebody like Smith would appeal a win," noting "he won the issue about immunity, and then he appealed his win."
As The New York Times noted, though, the Court could still end up hearing the case months down the road. "The case will move forward in an appeals court and most likely return to the Supreme Court in the coming months," a report on the news about the Court's decision mentioned.
The report also noted that the move was a victory for Trump. Emphasis is original:
The decision to defer consideration of a central issue in the case was a major practical victory for Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have consistently sought to delay criminal cases against him around the country.
...
Mr. Trump’s lawyers took the opposite view, asking the justices to follow the usual procedure by letting the appeals court consider the matter first.
“Importance does not automatically necessitate speed,” Mr. Trump’s brief said. “If anything, the opposite is usually true. Novel, complex, sensitive and historic issues — such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts — call for more careful deliberation, not less.”
...
Mr. Trump’s lawyers countered that the case, and the desire to resolve it promptly, was driven by political considerations.
“He confuses the ‘public interest’ with the manifest partisan interest in ensuring that President Trump will be subjected to a monthslong criminal trial at the height of a presidential campaign where he is the leading candidate and the only serious opponent of the current administration,” the brief said.
Recommended
While Smith tries to rush through such cases, Trump's legal team has sought delays. The trial of the case against Trump to do with his actions on and leading up to January 6, 2021 and the 2020 election was scheduled to take place on March 4, the night before the Super Tuesday voting contests.
Fox News' Shannon Bream noted that that March trial date "less likely."
BREAKING: #SCOTUS denies Special Counsel Jack Smith's request to expedite decision on Pres Trump's immunity claim. That means it will continue on its normal course through the appellate court. Makes March trial start date less likely for Smith/DOJ.
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) December 22, 2023
This case against Trump has been condemned as the weaponization and politicization of the federal government, specifically the Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Joe Biden. The indictments are thus seen as election interference, with Trump being considered the frontunner to face Biden next November, which would make the 2024 presidential election a rematch of 2020. RealClearPolling currently has Trump up with a lead of +2.3 against Biden in that hypothetical rematch.
It's not merely Trump's supporters expressing concerns though. His primary challengers have taken issue with such politicization, as has Dershowitz, who condemned "the weaponization of the criminal justice system" when speaking to Bartiromo last week. Dershowitz is a Democrat who has voted against Trump and is looking forward to being able to do so again, but has nevertheless defended him.
As The New York Times also noted, the Court could soon have another announcement to make, specifically when the Trump campaign appeals the decision from the Colorado Supreme Court to kick him off the ballot. "The Supreme Court will soon confront a different question arising from the aftermath of the 2020 election," the report noted.
That 4-3 decision out of Colorado came on Tuesday, with Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung sharing in a statement from that same night that they would "swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision."
Dershowitz weighed in on that matter as well, slamming the move as "undemocratic," as he also warned it would bring furher "chaos" to the 2024 election. Law Professor Jonathan Turley similarly regarded the move as "anti-democratic."
Join the conversation as a VIP Member