Here we go again! The Supreme Court has thrown a wrench into special counsel Jack Smith’s grand plans with their decision on Trump’s presidential immunity. Smith’s uphill battle just got steeper. The high court ruled 6-3 that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts but left the definition of “official” vague. Now, lower courts have to sort it out. Talk about passing the buck!
Legal experts say Smith should’ve seen this coming. Josh Hammer of the Article III Project believes Smith didn’t consider the immunity issue deeply enough. Maybe Smith thought it would be a walk in the park? Think again!
Chief Justice John Roberts pointed to a 2016 case where Smith prosecuted former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell. That case fell apart because prosecutors, including Smith, were too broad in defining “official acts.” Now, Roberts suggests Smith might be overreaching again with Trump. Déjà vu, anyone?
Local attorney Richard Kelsey notes the irony of Smith’s position. Smith has argued both sides of the “official acts” debate and lost both times. His consistency in failure is almost impressive.
The Supreme Court’s decision will likely limit the evidence Smith can present in the Washington, D.C. case against Trump, which has already sparked new challenges in New York and Florida. In Georgia, Trump’s lawyers are preparing to use this decision to fight state charges for alleged election interference. Smith’s cases are starting to look like a house of cards.
Despite the growing skepticism, Smith insists the right to a speedy trial should apply to Trump’s cases. Hammer mocks this, saying the Sixth Amendment is to protect citizens from the government, not the other way around.
If lower courts can quickly clarify which acts Trump is immune from before the election, Trump might learn which. However, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan will resume Trump’s D.C. case in August, and Trump’s lawyers are expected to delay, aiming to push contentious issues closer to the election.
Kelsey suggests Smith trim his indictments to avoid delays, but it’s unclear if He will do so. Hammer criticizes the timing, saying the Justice Department should’ve acted sooner. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith as special counsel in late 2022 added a layer of independence to the Trump investigation, but its late timing in 2023 is questionable.
Trump’s claim that Garland’s appointment of Smith is unlawful adds another layer of complexity. Smith is fighting this in court, but it could eventually reach the Supreme Court. If Trump wins this argument, it could nullify any convictions.
Trump faces multiple charges, including conspiracy and obstruction related to the election interference case and 40 counts in the classified documents case. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The Supreme Court’s rulings and challenges to Smith’s appointment likely cause significant delays in these cases.
Attorney Jim Trusty criticizes Smith’s prosecutions as overzealous. He believes Smith lacks the courage to adapt his cases to the mounting challenges and speculates Smith would rather see his cases dismissed by judges to claim unfair treatment. Trusty argues that Smith’s indictments are contaminated by acts protected by immunity and privilege.
The courts are skeptical of Smith’s aggressive approach, and the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity has complicated his cases. Smith may need to reconsider his strategy, but whether he will remains to be seen.
