Jack Smith makes urgent plea to SCOTUS to let Donald Trump’s election interference case proceed before election

Smith's request comes in response to a move by the former president and his lawyers attempting to put the case on pause while the court decides whether it should hear arguments for his claim that he has presidential immunity.

In the 40-page filing, Smith argued that "the public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former president is charged with conspiring to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office."

Prosecutors said the crimes leveled against Trump "strike at the heart of our democracy," and that the case was of "unique national importance."

"The national interest in resolving those charges without further delay is compelling," they added.

As the Associated Press reported, Trump's immunity defense was rejected by a lower court, and Smith urged the Supreme Court to abide by the ruling and refuse to entertain the former president's claim.

Noting that finding Trump immune from prosecution would be precedent-setting, Smith said his "alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law."

Smith added, however, that if the Supreme Court opts to go ahead with the defense, arguments should be heard in March, and a final ruling should be issued by the end of June.

The former president has also argued that if future commanders in chief are in constant fear of being criminally charged for their actions once out of office, it may hinder their ability to govern properly. Likewise, allowing his prosecution could lead to politically-motivated cases against other leaders.

Prosecutors dismissed his claims, saying "that dystopian vision runs contrary to the checks and balances built into our institutions and the framework of the Constitution," whose "guardrails ensure that the legal process for determining criminal liability will not be captive to 'political forces'."

The filing from Smtih concluded, “The application for a stay of the mandate should be denied. Alternatively, the Court should treat the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and order expedited briefing and argument.”

Filing Jack Smith by Tommy on Scribd