(CNN) — Special Counsel Jack Smith’s petition to the Supreme Court on Monday puts the justices in a highly charged position by a former president who has repeatedly tried to politicize the federal judiciary and use it for his own ends.
Because the case will test Smith’s federal charges against Donald Trump for election tampering, it will also test the U.S. Supreme Court.
During Trump’s tenure, controversies over his administration’s policy and his own businesses have continually baffled judges. While challenging the rule of law, Trump has promoted conspiracy theories and launched personal attacks. He made his case against Chief Justice John Roberts and, when he lost a case, against the entire court.
In the wake of the 2020 election, judges have dismissed unfounded Trump-related lawsuits that would have undermined the decisions that put Joe Biden in the White House.
Smith, who now represents the U.S. government, asked the justices, six conservatives and three liberals, to take their immediate responsibility on a question only they can decide with certainty: Shouldn’t a former president be prosecuted for crimes committed during his term?
From beginning to end, this Supreme Court case should be studied in its entirety. Public opinion polls show the justices’ approval rating is at an all-time low, as courts have issued a series of decisions that overturn established precedents and embroiled in ethical controversies.
Barring the appellate level, five votes are needed to take the case directly from a federal lower court, and individual justices must have different opinions about the urgency of the matter. Some have a different relationship with Trump.
He appointed three judges: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanagh and Amy Coney Barrett. Fourth, Clarence Thomas is connected to Trump through the activities of his wife, Ginny Thomas, who helped Trump retain the presidency in 2020.
That has already prompted some Democrats to question whether Thomas should be prosecuted. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin told CNN that Thomas should consider recusing himself because of his wife’s role in trying to sway the election results. Connecticut Senate. Richard Blumenthal went further and said he believed Thomas should definitely quit.
The justices’ decision on whether to hear Trump’s immunity claim, Jan. 6, 2021, his election rigging probe, which culminated in 2021, may determine whether the insurgency ends.
Smith has made a compelling case for the justices’ immediate intervention, before the U.S. Court of Appeals takes up the issue, which could go ahead with a trial scheduled for March 4.
The magnitude of the constitutional issue surrounding presidential immunity cannot be overstated, and Smith uses the Supreme Court’s 1974 Watergate case with the adage that “no person is above the law” to try to get justices to settle cases quickly.
“A president who abuses the electoral system must be held accountable for his criminal actions,” Smith wrote in his petition. “However, (Trump) has insisted that the Constitution grants him absolute immunity from prosecution. The text, structure and history of the Constitution provide no support for that novel claim.”
Late Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to expedite the filing of documents in this case, ordering the high court to hear the case on Smith’s request that Trump’s lawyers respond by 4:00 p.m. on December 20.
Trump’s speech against justice
The Trump campaign released a statement calling Smith “confused” and describing him as a “desperate attempt to run to the Supreme Court and try to avoid the appeals process.”
Such rhetoric reflects Trump’s long-standing mockery of judicial officials, including judges, evident since at least 2016, when he first ran for president and tried to discredit a U.S. District Court judge handling the Trump University fraud case. “Mexican” judge.
When Trump took office, he reprimanded judges at all levels of the judiciary when they acted against him. After the Supreme Court refused to hear a meritless challenge to the 2020 election results brought by a Republican attorney general, Trump wrote on Twitter: “The Supreme Court really failed us. No wisdom, no courage.”
Other moves by Trump have undermined his independence, such as when he invited all justices and their spouses to Kavanagh’s inauguration in October 2018. White House advisers assured the judges that the event would not be overtly political. However, it turned out to be a seriously partisan affair as the judges sat uncomfortably in the camera’s eyes. After publicly thanking each judge individually for their help, Trump accused Kavanagh of assault charges by Christine Blasey Ford, which are still circulating in the US, against Kavanagh, which he denies. Trump announced that he apologized to Kavanagh “on behalf of our nation.”
The following month, in November 2018, Trump criticized a judge who ruled against the administration’s policy on asylum seekers, calling him an “Obama judge.” This prompted Roberts to respond:
“We don’t have Justices Obama or Justices Trump, Justices Bush or Justices Clinton. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges who do their best by those who appear before them.”
Trump immediately responded on Twitter: “Sorry, Chief Justice John Roberts, but you actually have ‘Obama judges’ and they have a very different perspective than the people charged with protecting our nation.”
In a sign of Trump’s recent escalation, he is the subject of gag orders for inflammatory comments in an election-tampering case and, separately, in a civil fraud trial in New York.
However, Trump has won federal cases over the years, including at the Supreme Court. His administration’s agenda was supported even when it was challenged and unsuccessfully challenged by the Manhattan district attorney and, separately, by US House committees to keep his personal tax and other financial records. Expressions.
1973 Roe v. which legalized abortion nationwide. Trump also took credit for the court’s 2022 ruling that overturned the landmark Wade case. Trump said the new milestone was made possible by his three appointments. In a statement issued after the verdict, he said, “I did everything I promised.
5-4 result in the case Tops vs. Jackson Women’s Health System effectively sealed by Gorsuch, Kavanagh and Barrett; Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito also joined the majority.
Now Trump is running for the White House again, and the prospect of further remaking the high court.
Everything is happening fast now
Now, the justices are at least open to expeditiously considering the dispute over the presidential exemption. If Smith had to first present his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the process would take months and significantly delay Trump’s trial. The former president’s attorneys argued that Trump’s alleged actions regarding the 2020 election results were part of his official duties at the time and were therefore protected by presidential immunity.
“As President Trump has repeatedly said, this impeachment is purely politically motivated,” a Trump spokesman said Monday. “There is no reason for this bogus investigation except to harm President Trump and his millions of supporters. President Trump will continue to fight for justice and resist these authoritarian tactics.”
The justices last met in a closed session on December 8, and their next scheduled private session is not until January 5. But Smith’s request, like other similarly urgent matters, can be handled through conference calls and memos.
If the court grants the motion and decides to hear the case, Smith asked that both sides file opening briefs 14 days after the case is served.
The special counsel has modeled his schedule after the 1974 Watergate tapes case, in which justices rushed to impeach then-President Richard Nixon.
The judges concluded rule by unanimity, Sixteen days after oral arguments in July 1974, Nixon had to comply with a subpoena for tapes of conversations related to the break-in of the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate office building.
In the Trump controversy, U.S. District Judge Tanya Sudkan on Dec. 1 rejected her immunity claim, as well as Smith’s double jeopardy argument that she is constitutionally protected from impeachment because she was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate. .
Smith emphasized the importance of the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of such constitutional questions, resolving the issues quickly.
With unprecedented legal complications and Trump’s volatility among judges, the suspense and stakes couldn’t be higher.
