Special Counsel Jack Smith’s wording of his request to the Supreme Court to not delay Donald Trump’s federal election obstruction trial by taking up his immunity appeal has been criticized by an attorney.
Bill Shipley, a former federal prosecutor who now represents some of the defendants charged in connection with the January 6 attack, suggested Smith may have “shot himself in the foot” after he told the court that the nation has a “compelling interest” in seeing Trump brought to trial promptly.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to four charges over allegations he illegally tried to overturn the 2020 election results. The former president is currently trying to have the case dismissed, arguing he is immune from prosecution as the charges relate to his time in the White House. Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has faced accusations he is attempting to delay the start of the federal trial until after the election as he could demand the Department of Justice drops the case if reelected.
On Wednesday, Smith wrote to the Supreme Court urging the justices to allow a previous ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit—rejecting Trump’s claims of absolute immunity—to remain, and for trial proceedings to continue. The originally scheduled trial date of March 4 has already been scrapped, with no new date currently proposed.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict—a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power,” Smith wrote in his filing.
“The public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former President is charged with conspiring to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office. The Nation has a compelling interest in seeing the charges brought to trial.”
In response, Shipley said that Smith may anger the Supreme Court justices by suggesting they would not be acting in the interest of the country unless they abide by the federal prosecutor’s timeline.
“I don’t think SCOTUS will be patient with a lecture about how to perform [its] Constitutional role in a way that is ‘In the public interest,'” Shipley posted on X, formerly Twitter.
“Smith has shot himself in the foot by creating the impression in the mind of the lefties that if SCOTUS doesn’t adopt his preferred timing, SCOTUS is not acting ‘in the public interest.'”
Smith’s office declined to comment.
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman said that Smith’s request was a “dramatic, but expected” move.
“Everything about the opposition, including urging the court to deny stay, speaks to the great need for SPEED. The court will take notice,” Litman posted.
“On the other hand, whether the court takes the case won’t fundamentally depend on what Smith says. It will come down to whether it thinks, being the Supreme Court, it has to rule, n/w/s that the ruling would be to affirm the DC circuit.”
Shipley previously criticized Smith after noting the special counsel skipped the usual steps of going through the lower courts by asking the Supreme Court to quickly resolve the immunity issue. In filings, Smith argued that it is of “imperative public importance” that the country’s highest court immediately rule on the immunity debate to prevent the trial being delayed.
The Supreme Court rejected Smith’s request in December 2023 and held that the immunity decision should go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit first. Trump’s lawyers are now asking the Supreme Court to halt the trial proceedings as they seek the appeals court to reconsider the ruling, or for SCOTUS to take up the case and review the lower court’s decision, otherwise known as a “Cert petition.”
“Makes it sort of hard to oppose a Cert petition now, doesn’t it,” Shipley posted while sharing Smith’s previous court filings. “Pretty much an admission that the panel’s decision is not where this question needs to be resolved.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.