The Supreme Court received a stern warning this week not to delay former President Donald Trump’s presidential immunity case any longer, court records show.
Common Cause, a nonpartisan watchdog group, issued the warning Thursday in an amicus brief filed to the upcoming Supreme Court hearing that has brought special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case to a standstill.
“This Court is at serious risk of being perceived as attempting to influence the 2024 election in favor of Mr. Trump,” the group writes. “It should do everything possible now to avoid that impression, which would be highly detrimental to this Court’s reputation for neutrality and fairness. Time is of the essence.”
Common Cause's 37-page brief condemns the nation’s highest court scheduling decisions they argue came to Trump’s legal rescue “against the public interest."
Specifically, the group points to the Supreme Court’s speedy ruling on his 14th Amendment insurrectionist ban challenge — a ruling that allowed Trump to remain on Colorado’s ballot — and the scheduling of his presidential immunity hearing until April 25, the last day possible.
Trump is claiming he is immune from prosecution because his actions were taken while president. Smith had requested to cut out usual procedures and take the case straight to the U.S. Supreme Court for a fast decision, but his request was denied.
“Both cases ask, in different ways, whether Mr. Trump illegally attempted to interfere with the outcome of the 2020 election,” Common Cause argues. “Yet to date, the Court has treated the two cases in dissimilar ways that seem to favor Mr. Trump.”
Common Cause notes it took the court five weeks on Trump v. Anderson, the Colorado Supreme Court challenge, but will not hear arguments until 20 weeks after Smith first requested a judgment.
The ruling could take another two months and render a verdict in the crucial criminal case before the 2024 presidential election impossible, the brief states.
“If that is the outcome and this Court rejects Mr. Trump’s immunity defense, then many Americans may fairly wonder whether the disparity in the Court’s scheduling decisions in these two related cases…were for the purpose of favoring the election of Mr. Trump and denying voters information critical to their decision-making,” the brief states.
“To preserve the Court’s reputation for neutrality and avoid interfering with the election, the Court should decide this case rapidly so as to permit trial to take place before Election Day.”
ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why keeping Trump from the White House is all that matters
Common Cause reminds the court that Trump could effectively kill the election interference case against him should he regain control of the White House, and the Justice Department, in 2025.
“That interest is unusually compelling here because delay until after the election could, if Mr. Trump is reelected, lead to the unseemly spectacle of a criminal defendant directing the dismissal of his own indictment so the public would never learn whether their newly elected president is guilty or innocent,” they write.
“A prompt decision is essential so that voters on Election Day know whether or not one of the two major candidates has committed serious federal crimes in an attempt to overthrow our constitutional order.”
