WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will not immediately take up a plea by special counsel Jack Smith to rule on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his actions to overturn the 2020 election results.

The ruling is a scheduling win for Trump and his lawyers, who have sought repeatedly to delay the criminal cases against him as he campaigns to reclaim the White House in 2024. It averts a swift ruling from the nation’s highest court that could have definitively turned aside his claims of immunity, and it further throws into doubt the possibility of the landmark trial proceeding as scheduled on March 4.

The issue will now be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has signaled it will act quickly to decide the case. Special counsel Jack Smith had cautioned that even a rapid appellate decision might not get to the Supreme Court in time for review and final word before the court’s traditional summer break.

Smith had pressed the Supreme Court to intervene, citing significant public interest in a prompt resolution to the case. The request to leapfrog the appeals court, which Smith himself acknowledged was “extraordinary,” also underscored prosecutors’ concerns that the fight over the issue could delay the start of Trump’s trial beyond next year’s presidential election.

The justices turned down Smith’s request in a single-sentence order Friday. As is customary, the court gave no explanation for the decision.

With the justices remaining out of the dispute for now, additional appeals are likely that could delay the case. If the appeals court, which is set to hear arguments on Jan. 9, turns down Trump’s immunity claims, he could then ask for the Supreme Court to get involved — giving the justices another opportunity to decide if they want to weigh in.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has already put the case on hold while Trump pursues his claim that he is immune from prosecution. Chutkan has raised the possibility of keeping the March trial date if the case promptly returns to her court.

She earlier rejected the Trump team’s arguments that an ex-president could not be prosecuted over acts that fall within the official duties of the job.

“Former presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote in a Dec. 1 ruling. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”

In a statement Friday, Trump insisted anew that he was “entitled to presidential immunity” and was looking forward to having his case heard before the appeals court.

There are still more Trump-related cases that the Supreme Court, which includes three justices appointed by him, is poised to grapple with.

Trump’s lawyers plan to ask the court t to overturn a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court barring him from that state’s ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding office.

And the court separately has agreed to hear a case over the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding that has been brought against Trump and more than 300 of his supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In the current immunity case, Smith had tried to persuade the justices to take up the matter directly, bypassing the appeals court.

“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” prosecutors wrote.

Underscoring the urgency for prosecutors, Smith and his team wrote: “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.”

Trump’s lawyers have for months signaled that they would ultimately ask the Supreme Court to take up the immunity question. But they urged the justices this week to stand down for now, saying there was no reason to rush a decision.

“Importance does not automatically necessitate speed. If anything, the opposite is usually true. Novel, complex, sensitive and historic issues — such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts — call for more careful deliberation, not less,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. Though there’s no such bar against prosecution for a former commander in chief, lawyers for Trump say that he cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president — a claim that prosecutors have vigorously rejected.

Trump faces charges accusing him of working to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden before the violent riot at the Capitol. He has denied any wrongdoing.

The high court still could act quickly once the appeals court issues its decision. A Supreme Court case usually lasts several months, but on rare occasions, the justices shift into high gear.

Nearly 50 years ago, the justices acted within two months of being asked to force President Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office recordings in the Watergate scandal. The tapes were then used later in 1974 in the corruption prosecutions of Nixon’s former aides.

It took the high court just a few days to effectively decide the 2000 presidential election for Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

The case in Washington is one of four he faces.

He’s also been charged by Smith with illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, a case set for trial next May, and is accused by state prosecutors in Georgia of scheming to subvert that state’s presidential election and in New York in connection with a hush money payment to a porn actress.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Supreme Court rejects prosecutor’s push to fast-track ruling in Trump election subversion case appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Donald Trump’s legal team told a judge overseeing the election conspiracy case against him on Monday that prosecutors’ proposed protective order aimed at preventing the public disclosure of evidence is too broad and would restrict his First Amendment rights.

Lawyers for the early 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner said in court papers that the judge should impose a more limited order that would bar the public release only of materials deemed “sensitive” — such as grand jury documents — rather than all evidence handed over by the government in the case accusing Trump of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s team quickly countered with their own filing accusing Trump of objecting to their proposal because he wants to be able to use the government’s evidence to “try the case in the media rather than in the courtroom.”

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said later Monday that she would hold a hearing on the dueling proposals, and that Trump would not have to attend.

Prosecutors asked Friday for the protective order, which would impose rules on what Trump and his defense team can do with evidence shared by the government as they prepare for trial in the case unsealed last week.

Smith’s prosecution team has said a protective order — not unusual in criminal cases — is particularly important in Trump’s case because of his penchant for using social media. They have expressed concern that Trump could improperly share sensitive case information online that could have a “harmful chilling effect on witnesses.”

In their filing Friday seeking the order, prosecutors included a screenshot of a post from Trump’s Truth Social platform that same day in which he wrote, in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”

Trump’s lawyers said citing that post to claim there’s a danger that Trump might publish secret grand jury information was “a provocative claim when searching for headlines, perhaps, but one that falters under minimal scrutiny.”

The former president’s legal team said his post was “generalized political speech” and had nothing to do with the case. A Trump spokesperson said last week that the post was in response to “dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs.”

Trump’s lawyers, who have characterized the case as an attack on his right to free speech, told the judge that the need to protect sensitive information about the case “does not require a blanket gag order over all documents produced by the government.”

“In a trial about First Amendment rights, the government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “Worse, it does so against its administration’s primary political opponent, during an election season in which the administration, prominent party members and media allies have campaigned on the indictment and proliferated its false allegations.”

Trump’s lawyers accused President Joe Biden of trying to capitalize on the indictment in posting what they called a “thinly veiled reference” to Trump’s prosecution just hours before Trump’s court appearance last week. They included a screenshot in their court filing of a tweet from from Biden’s campaign account, which included a video of the president drinking from a mug emblazoned with “Dark Brandon” — a meme featuring Biden with lasers for eyes. The caption said, “A cup of Joe never tasted better.”

Trump’s lawyers on Saturday had asked for an extra three days to respond to prosecutors’ request for the protective order, saying they needed more time for discussion. But Chutkan who was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, swiftly denied that request.

Prosecutors said that they are ready to hand over a substantial amount of evidence to Trump’s legal team and that much of it includes sensitive and confidential information.

The prosecutors’ proposed order seeks to prevent Trump and his lawyers from disclosing materials provided by the government to anyone other than people on his legal team, possible witnesses, the witnesses’ lawyers or others approved by the court. It would put stricter limits on “sensitive materials,” which prosecutors said would include grand jury witness testimony and materials obtained through sealed search warrants.

Prosecutors noted in court papers Monday that Trump has made several comments about the case on social media even since they filed their protective order request. They referenced one Trump post about former Vice President Mike Pence — a potential witness in the case — in which Trump called Pence “delusional.”

Prosecutors said Trump’s proposal aims to allow for the release of transcripts and audio recordings of witness interviews conducted outside the grand jury process.

“The Government has proposed a standard, reasonable order that will streamline the flow of discovery to the defendant while preserving the integrity of these proceedings. The defendant has proposed an unreasonable order to facilitate his plan to litigate this case in the media, to the detriment of litigating this case in the courtroom. Normal order should prevail,” prosecutors wrote.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing in the case, as well as another prosecution brought by Smith that accuses him of illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.

He has has characterized all the cases against him as an effort to take down his 2024 campaign. His legal team has indicated that it will argue that he had relied on the advice of attorneys around him in 2020 and that Trump had a right to challenge an election that he believed had been stolen.

Trump pleaded not guilty last week to four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy to obstruct Congress’ certification of Biden’s electoral victory. The charges could lead to a lengthy prison sentence in the event of a conviction, with the most serious counts calling for up to 20 years.

It’s the third criminal case brought this year against Trump, but the first to try to hold him responsible for his efforts to remain in power during the chaotic weeks between his election loss and the attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Smith also charged Trump in June with dozens of felony counts alleging the former president illegally kept classified records after he left the White House and obstructed government efforts to get them back. A new indictment recently unsealed in that case accuses Trump of scheming with Mar-a-Lago staffers to try to delete security footage sought by investigators.

Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart in that case imposed a similar protective order in June that prohibits Trump and his legal team from publicly disclosing evidence turned over to them by prosecutors without prior approval.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Trump lawyers urge judge to narrow proposed rules on evidence sharing in election subversion case appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.