Twenty-Two State AGs Ask Supreme Court To Decide Trump’s Immunity Question Before Prosecution
3 min read
Twenty-two state attorneys general have requested the Supreme Court to halt Special Counsel Jack Smith’s swift prosecution of former President Donald Trump for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results.
They are urging a pause until the Court rules on whether such a trial is constitutionally permissible.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall led this group in filing an amicus brief with the Court, arguing that Smith’s rush to prosecute Trump before the 2024 election has raised concerns about potential ulterior motives and could impact the fairness of the legal process.
They believe that waiting for a decision on Trump’s presidential immunity would help uphold public trust in the justice system.
Trump has submitted a request to stay a ruling by the D.C. Circuit that presidents can be prosecuted for actions taken during their time in office
. Marshall and his colleagues support this application, emphasizing that such a significant issue regarding presidential immunity should be decided by the highest court in the country.
“Before a former President faces a federal criminal trial for the first time in our Nation’s history, this Court should decide whether such a trial is permitted by the Constitution.”
The brief raises additional questions regarding the DOJ’s failure to file charges on the actions raised in the allegation for over two years before insisting on its “relentless” demand to take Trump to trial “as promptly as possible.”
“To say the least, the timing is suspicious, and it warrants explanation,” the brief reads. “But the United States has never offered one.”
“[T]iming a criminal prosecution to influence an election is no way to protect democracy, and it is not a legitimate end of law enforcement,” the brief continues.
The brief’s authors suggest President Joe Biden deserves a share of the blame for the appearance of impropriety:
President Biden himself, in November 2022, declared that Donald Trump “will not take power …. I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.
” It does not look good, and it looks worse when the prosecution presses every court reviewing President Trump’s constitutional claims to move more quickly. This week, the prosecution’s amicus said the quiet part out loud: “[T]his is not just any case,” argued the Protect Democracy Project, because a stay might “delay the trial until after the 2024 election,” “denying the voters relevant information.”
Trump declared his intention to seek the nomination on November 15, 2022, after hinting at his plans in the days preceding Biden’s remarks.
Marshall and a group of attorneys general advocate for a delay to safeguard the constitutionality of the procedure and to reassure the public that the Department of Justice is not interfering in the election.
“Contrary to the prosecution’s haste, the fact that the defendant is a former President is a reason to move carefully—to be sure the prosecution is constitutional from inception. And the fact that the defendant is potentially a future President is even more reason to ensure the appearance and reality of fairness.”
Alabama is joined by Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming in the case United States v. Trump (No. 23A745) before the Supreme Court of the United States.
kommonsentsjane 