A petition has been submitted to the US Supreme Court marking the first instance where the court is asked to consider Donald Trump’s legal protections. The petition seeks a ruling on whether a former president enjoys “absolute immunity” from federal prosecution for actions committed during their time in office.
Jack Smith, the US special counsel overseeing federal criminal prosecutions of Trump, on Monday urged the Supreme Court to grant “immediate review” in order for the case to be decided during its current term, which usually ends in June or early July. That would ensure a resolution months before the presidential election in November 2024. Trump remains the favourite to become the Republican nominee.
The high court later on Monday granted the request to fast-track consideration of the petition and directed Trump to file a response by December 20. “This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy,” Smith wrote in the brief. Trump’s claims of presidential immunity are “profoundly mistaken” and “only this court can definitively resolve them”, he added. The petition puts an issue at the heart of the multiple cases against Trump before the US’s highest court, in an effort to determine whether he can be shielded from prosecution for his actions while in office. Trump has argued that he can, in seeking to dismiss a federal indictment charging him with trying to interfere with the results of the 2020 election. US Supreme Court
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the election interference case, earlier this month rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss. He subsequently appealed against this decision and asked that all proceedings related to the case be put on hold pending a final order. Smith urged the Supreme Court to take the unusual step of hearing the case immediately. “Nothing could be more vital to our democracy than . . . a president who abuses the electoral system to remain in office is held accountable for criminal conduct,” he wrote in Monday’s petition. “Yet [Trump] has asserted that the Constitution accords him absolute immunity from prosecution. The Constitution’s text, structure, and history lend no support to that novel claim.”