To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the New York Young Republican Club's 111th annual gala in New York City on December 9, 2023.
"Unwilling to play Trump's stupid reindeer games, Jack Smith takes the reins and seeks an expedited answer from the Supreme Court on Trump's baseless claim that he is above the law," said one expert.
The special counsel for two criminal probes targeting former President Donald Trump, Jack Smith, on Monday asked the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court to effectively decide whether the federal election interference case can actually go to trial next March.
Smith requested the justices—including three Trump appointees—weigh in on "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."
While Trump "has asserted that the Constitution accords him absolute immunity from prosecution," Smith noted, "the district court presiding over this case rejected respondent's constitutional arguments and has scheduled trial for March 4, 2024."
"If you're worried about what SCOTUS will do on the merits, they will have a chance to do it eventually—might as well find out ASAP."
As NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner summarized, "Unwilling to play Trump's stupid reindeer games, Jack Smith takes the reins and seeks an expedited answer from the Supreme Court on Trump's baseless claim that he is above the law and can't be prosecuted for his crimes."
After Trump officially announced his current presidential campaign last year, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to lead the investigation into the Republican's involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, including the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Trump—the GOP's 2024 front-runner despite his legal trouble and arguments that he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office again—was indicted in early August on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.
The special counsel is asking the Supreme Court to skip over the appeals court based in Washington, D.C. MSNBC legal contributor Andrew Weissmann explained on-air Monday that it is "unusual" but a "smart move" by Smith, as a quick ruling from the nation's highest court could keep the trial on track to happen before next year's presidential election.
George Washington University Law School professor and columnist Randall Eliason agreed that "it's a smart move," stressing on social media that "Smith is doing everything he can to keep the trial date on track."
Los Angeles Times senior legal affairs columnist Harry Litman called it "a huge and possibly brilliant move, a game-changer one way or another."
Going straight to the high court is "a HUGE gambit," he asserted, and Smith is "inviting trouble but obviously has calculated they're going to decide whether to take it at some point so might as well be sooner."
Meanwhile, Eliason said that "I don't see it as risky. If you're worried about what SCOTUS will do on the merits, they will have a chance to do it eventually—might as well find out ASAP."
Trump has channeled former President Richard Nixon in his fight against these charges, and Eliason pointed out Monday that during the Watergate scandal, on Nixon's appeal of the order to produce White House tapes, the Supreme Court declined to wait for the appeals court.
Litman said that "basically, this is the U.S. versus Nixon move. They're saying it's a similar gravity and exigency. It will be part of the historical account of the Jack Smith operation."
As CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck concluded, "The bottom line of Jack Smith's SCOTUS filing is that he wants to ensure, one way or the other, that the issue of Trump's constitutional immunity from the January 6-related prosecution is conclusively resolved by the end of the Supreme Court's *current* term (i.e., June 2024)."
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
The special counsel for two criminal probes targeting former President Donald Trump, Jack Smith, on Monday asked the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court to effectively decide whether the federal election interference case can actually go to trial next March.
Smith requested the justices—including three Trump appointees—weigh in on "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."
While Trump "has asserted that the Constitution accords him absolute immunity from prosecution," Smith noted, "the district court presiding over this case rejected respondent's constitutional arguments and has scheduled trial for March 4, 2024."
"If you're worried about what SCOTUS will do on the merits, they will have a chance to do it eventually—might as well find out ASAP."
As NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner summarized, "Unwilling to play Trump's stupid reindeer games, Jack Smith takes the reins and seeks an expedited answer from the Supreme Court on Trump's baseless claim that he is above the law and can't be prosecuted for his crimes."
After Trump officially announced his current presidential campaign last year, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to lead the investigation into the Republican's involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, including the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Trump—the GOP's 2024 front-runner despite his legal trouble and arguments that he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office again—was indicted in early August on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.
The special counsel is asking the Supreme Court to skip over the appeals court based in Washington, D.C. MSNBC legal contributor Andrew Weissmann explained on-air Monday that it is "unusual" but a "smart move" by Smith, as a quick ruling from the nation's highest court could keep the trial on track to happen before next year's presidential election.
George Washington University Law School professor and columnist Randall Eliason agreed that "it's a smart move," stressing on social media that "Smith is doing everything he can to keep the trial date on track."
Los Angeles Times senior legal affairs columnist Harry Litman called it "a huge and possibly brilliant move, a game-changer one way or another."
Going straight to the high court is "a HUGE gambit," he asserted, and Smith is "inviting trouble but obviously has calculated they're going to decide whether to take it at some point so might as well be sooner."
Meanwhile, Eliason said that "I don't see it as risky. If you're worried about what SCOTUS will do on the merits, they will have a chance to do it eventually—might as well find out ASAP."
Trump has channeled former President Richard Nixon in his fight against these charges, and Eliason pointed out Monday that during the Watergate scandal, on Nixon's appeal of the order to produce White House tapes, the Supreme Court declined to wait for the appeals court.
Litman said that "basically, this is the U.S. versus Nixon move. They're saying it's a similar gravity and exigency. It will be part of the historical account of the Jack Smith operation."
As CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck concluded, "The bottom line of Jack Smith's SCOTUS filing is that he wants to ensure, one way or the other, that the issue of Trump's constitutional immunity from the January 6-related prosecution is conclusively resolved by the end of the Supreme Court's *current* term (i.e., June 2024)."
The special counsel for two criminal probes targeting former President Donald Trump, Jack Smith, on Monday asked the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court to effectively decide whether the federal election interference case can actually go to trial next March.
Smith requested the justices—including three Trump appointees—weigh in on "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."
While Trump "has asserted that the Constitution accords him absolute immunity from prosecution," Smith noted, "the district court presiding over this case rejected respondent's constitutional arguments and has scheduled trial for March 4, 2024."
"If you're worried about what SCOTUS will do on the merits, they will have a chance to do it eventually—might as well find out ASAP."
As NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner summarized, "Unwilling to play Trump's stupid reindeer games, Jack Smith takes the reins and seeks an expedited answer from the Supreme Court on Trump's baseless claim that he is above the law and can't be prosecuted for his crimes."
After Trump officially announced his current presidential campaign last year, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to lead the investigation into the Republican's involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, including the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Trump—the GOP's 2024 front-runner despite his legal trouble and arguments that he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office again—was indicted in early August on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.
The special counsel is asking the Supreme Court to skip over the appeals court based in Washington, D.C. MSNBC legal contributor Andrew Weissmann explained on-air Monday that it is "unusual" but a "smart move" by Smith, as a quick ruling from the nation's highest court could keep the trial on track to happen before next year's presidential election.
George Washington University Law School professor and columnist Randall Eliason agreed that "it's a smart move," stressing on social media that "Smith is doing everything he can to keep the trial date on track."
Los Angeles Times senior legal affairs columnist Harry Litman called it "a huge and possibly brilliant move, a game-changer one way or another."
Going straight to the high court is "a HUGE gambit," he asserted, and Smith is "inviting trouble but obviously has calculated they're going to decide whether to take it at some point so might as well be sooner."
Meanwhile, Eliason said that "I don't see it as risky. If you're worried about what SCOTUS will do on the merits, they will have a chance to do it eventually—might as well find out ASAP."
Trump has channeled former President Richard Nixon in his fight against these charges, and Eliason pointed out Monday that during the Watergate scandal, on Nixon's appeal of the order to produce White House tapes, the Supreme Court declined to wait for the appeals court.
Litman said that "basically, this is the U.S. versus Nixon move. They're saying it's a similar gravity and exigency. It will be part of the historical account of the Jack Smith operation."
As CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck concluded, "The bottom line of Jack Smith's SCOTUS filing is that he wants to ensure, one way or the other, that the issue of Trump's constitutional immunity from the January 6-related prosecution is conclusively resolved by the end of the Supreme Court's *current* term (i.e., June 2024)."