A couple of other internet places have Jack Smith’s filing of a Writ of Certiorari to SCOTUS. Rather than use them I chose to copy the verbiage directly from the Writ. This is not a hard read at all. Basically, Jack is saying, I know what you are doing trump. The United States and its people will not stand for your delay(s) in bringing you to justice for the January 6th insurrection which may allow you to run for the presidency.
A partial of the petition filed by Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice Jack Smith to SCOTUS.
In the Supreme Court of the United States
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER
DONALD J. TRUMP
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Respondent agrees that the question whether a former President of the United States enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for a conspiracy to overturn an election, and thereby prevent the lawful winner from taking office, is an issue of great constitutional moment. Br. in Opp. 1, 19. Respondent’s principal argument in opposition is that the Court should wait. That is incorrect. This Court’s immediate review of that question is the only way to achieve its timely and definitive resolution.
The district court has set a March 4, 2024 trial date. Respondent’s interlocutory appeal has resulted in a stay of any proceedings that would move this case towards trial. And while the court of appeals has expedited briefing and argument on respondent’s interlocutory appeal, the time of its final decision is uncertain. Only a grant of certiorari before judgment—a procedure followed in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and comparably consequential cases—will assure that the Court can hear and resolve the case promptly, and in any event in its current Term.
Respondent agrees that the important constitutional question in this case will require this Court’s review. But he maintains that the Court should wait for the appellate process to unfold below so that this Court has the benefit of the court of appeals’ decision. Br. in Opp. 17-21. That suggestion is misguided. The public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this Court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves—for the first time in our Nation’s history—criminal charges against a former President based on his actions while in office. And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election. The Nation has a compelling interest in a decision on respondent’s claim of immunity from these charges—and if they are to be tried, a resolution by conviction or acquittal, without undue delay.
Given respondent’s categorical immunity claim over every act alleged in the indictment—all of which, he
contends, fall within the outer perimeter of his “official” duties, see Br. in Opp. 8, 16—this Court’s review is essential to allow this case to move forward. Only this Court can provide the final word on his immunity defense. Certiorari before judgment will allow the Court to set a schedule for briefing and argument to assure that respondent’s immunity claim will be resolved as expeditiously as possible.
Respondent’s other arguments provide no sound reason to deny immediate review. He asserts that the government lacks standing to bring an appeal. But the government is not seeking to appeal the district court’s order. Respondent himself has appealed that order. The petition asks this Court to grant certiorari before judgment in a case that is already pending in the court of appeals—as the Court has often done at the behest of parties that prevailed in district court. And although a full response to respondent’s immunity arguments can await briefing on the merits, respondent errs in asserting that the district court overlooked important aspects of the question. To the contrary, respondent repeats arguments that the district court carefully considered and rejected. Respondent’s disagreement provides no reason to defer this Court’s resolution of his claim. This Court should grant certiorari and set the case for expedited briefing and argument.20231221105032440_United States v. Trump_CBJ Reply.pdf (supremecourt.gov)
Briefly describing the A, B, and C reasoning supporting the Writ by Jack Smith. More detail can be found on the Writ itself. The Writ is 10 pages in total. It too is an easy read if you are interested in its entirety.
A. This Case Warrants Certiorari
Respondent’s immunity claim implicates issues that are central to the rule of law. Contrary to respondent’s characterization (Br. in Opp. 8-10), the indictment alleges serious criminal conduct: that respondent, while serving as President and a candidate for reelection, conspired to thwart the lawful transfer of power through (1) fraud against the United States to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government’s collection, counting, and certification of the results of the election; (2) corruptly obstructing the proceeding conducted by the Joint Session of Congress to confirm the electoral vote; and (3) depriving millions of citizens of their right to have their votes counted. Enforcing federal criminal laws that prohibit such conduct is vital to protecting our constitutional processes and democracy itself (more verbiage in the document).
B. Certiorari Before Judgment Is Appropriate
This Court reserves certiorari before judgment for exceptionally important cases where sound reasons justify review in this Court before completion of proceedings in the court of appeals. Sup. Ct. R. 11; Pet. 10. This is such a case. Just as the Court granted certiorari before judgment in United States v. Nixon, supra, and expedited its proceedings in view of a scheduled criminal trial, it should do the same here. Respondent’s contrary arguments lack merit (more verbiage in the document).
C. Respondent’s Remaining Arguments Lack Merit20231221105032440_United States v. Trump_CBJ Reply.pdf (supremecourt.gov)
Neither respondent’s nor amici’s additional arguments justify denying review (more verbiage in the document).