Jack Smith Could Be Headed for 'Disaster' in Trump Case

Special Counsel Jack Smith could potentially be headed for a "disaster" in Donald Trump's case involving arguments of presidential immunity, a legal analyst said this week.

On Tuesday, attorney and legal commentator Elie Honig, appeared on CNN News Central to speak about a recent brief submitted by Smith to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the court to reject Trump's claims of presidential immunity in his federal election interference case.

"One thing that Jack Smith is clearly concerned about, having read that brief last night, he wants to avoid a scenario where the Supreme Court sends the case back down to the trial court and says, 'you have to hold a hearing. You have to tell us, was he within the scope or not,'" Honig said. "Because that would be a scheduling disaster."

"He's clearly trying to bend off that scenario where the Supreme Court punts it back down to the district court," Honig said.

The Context

Trump was indicted by Smith on charges relating to alleged election interference following the 2020 election and January 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol. Trump, who pleaded not guilty to the charges, has argued that he had presidential immunity and has denied any wrongdoing in the case.

The Supreme Court previously announced that it was planning to hear arguments in Trump's claims of presidential immunity after it was turned down by two different lower courts.

What We Know

On Monday, Smith filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing against Trump's claims of presidential immunity, saying in part that "even assuming that a former President is entitled to some immunity for official acts, that immunity should not be held to bar this prosecution."

"First, a President's alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his lawfully elected successor is the paradigmatic example of conduct that should not be immunized, even if other conduct should be," Smith wrote in his brief. "Second, at the core of the charged conspiracies is a private scheme with private actors to achieve a private end: petitioner's effort to remain in power by fraud."

"Those allegations of private misconduct are more than sufficient to support the indictment."

Newsweek reached out to Trump's spokesperson via email for comment.

Views

In a post to X, formerly Twitter, Joyce Vance, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, responded to Smith's brief, writing: "This may be the most critical piece: Smith tells the Court: 'even if you think there might need to be some immunity for a president, it's not this case. Let this one go to trial.'"

Alan Dershowitz, who previously represented Trump in his 2020 impeachment trial, spoke with Fox Business Network's Mornings with Maria, last month and mentioned the Supreme Court's hearing on presidential immunity.

"All the pundits are predicting that it will just be affirmed, affirmed, affirmed and thrown out. I don't think so," Dershowitz said. "I think the Supreme Court may well split the difference and say, 'There is some immunity not as broad as Trump wanted, not as narrow as the other side wanted, let's send it back and see where it goes from here.'"

What's Next

The Supreme Court justices are expected to hear arguments on Trump's claims of presidential immunity on April 25. Trump has suggested that he'd like the presidential immunity ruling to come after the 2024 presidential election.

It is currently unclear when the court will issue its final ruling on Trump's immunity claims.

Update, 4/9/24, 7:30 a.m. EST: This story has been updated with further information.

Update, 4/9/24, 8:05 a.m. EST: This story has been updated with further information.