The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump on Friday when it decided to reject special counsel Jack Smith’s request to fast-track its review into whether he has immunity from prosecution.
Supreme Court Deals Blow To Jack Smith, Refuses To Quickly Take Up Trump Immunity Claim https://t.co/sm9JLjDMv0 pic.twitter.com/bauMZ7EauZ
— Daily Wire News (@DailyWireNews) December 22, 2023
“The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied,” the high court said in its order.
The SCOTUS’s Friday decision comes less than two weeks after Smith originally requested that the justices speedily determine if Trump could be legally prosecuted in the case in which Trump is accused of trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
His four-count indictment states, “Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to stay in power. So for more than two months following Election Day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election that he actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew they were false.”
His charges include one count on conspiracy to defraud the U.S., one on conspiracy against rights, one on conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and one of obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.
Smith had been trying to push for his 2020 election interference case against Trump to go to trial in March next year before the election in November as he fears that the case could be delayed until 2025 after the election.
Trump has called the prosecution of Smith a political move and “election interference,” as he argues that it is aimed at distorting his presidential campaign ahead of November’s election.
“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” the prosecutor stated.
Trump’s defense kicked against the request, arguing that the case requires “more careful deliberation, not less.”
