Legal/Law/Criminal Justice and Reform

Jack Smith Requests Delay In Trump Case To Assess Impact Of Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Ruling

Screenshot/YouTube/CSPAN

Special counsel Jack Smith requested a delay Thursday night in former president Donald Trump’s election interference case.

Prosecutors wrote in a filing that the government is still assessing the impact of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling and asked for the timeline to be pushed back several weeks. Judge Tanya Chutkan previously scheduled a hearing for Aug. 16, but Smith requested permission to instead file a proposed schedule for pretrial proceedings by the end of the month, effectively delaying any action until September.

“Although those consultations are well underway, the Government has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision,” prosecutors wrote in the filing. “The Government therefore respectfully requests additional time to provide the Court with an informed proposal regarding the schedule for pretrial proceedings moving forward.”

Trump’s defense team did not oppose Smith’s request, the filing notes.

The request represents a departure from Smith’s approach to the case since its beginning, as his team has worked to expedite proceedings whenever possible. In December, Smith asked the Supreme Court to consider the presidential immunity issue before allowing the appeals court to decide, but the justices declined to take it up early.

Chutkan initially denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the case based on presidential immunity on Dec. 1. His appeal resulted in a multi-month delay in the case and the cancelation of the initially scheduled March trial date.

The Supreme Court found 6-3 last month that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken in office.

“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” the court held. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”

The justices left lower courts to decide which allegations in Trump’s indictment are “official acts” subject to immunity.

Featured image credit. Screenshot/YouTube/CSPAN