In a new filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, Special Counsel Jack Smith at the Justice Department directly confronts Trump-aligned arguments that the specially appointed federal prosecutor doesn’t have the appropriate legal authority to be pursuing a prosecution of Donald Trump on January 6-related charges.
Trump stands accused of several criminal conspiracies inherent to his attempts after the last presidential race to stay in power despite losing, as credible authorities confirmed. The specific claims to which Smith was responding don’t originate with Trump himself but instead a supplementary court filing made by another party. Smith was in fact referring to a document that traces to Edwin Meese III, who led the Justice Department during the presidential tenure of Ronald Reagan. Meese’s filing with the Supreme Court challenges Smith’s ability to operate at all, characterizing the longtime pursuer of justice who’s worked accordingly both inside and outside of the United States as an overreaching private citizen.
“Second, an amici brief in support of neither party raises an argument respondent has not raised at any point in this case: that the Special Counsel lacks statutory and constitutional authority to bring this prosecution,” the Smith filing recaps, adding: “This Court rejected a materially identical statutory contention in United States v. Nixon, holding that the Attorney General properly appointed the Special Prosecutor there pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515, and 533.” Federal prosecutors also pointed to precedent against the consideration at such an appeals stage of arguments that parties to the case had not raised at earlier points.
Across the new filing as a whole, Smith and his prosecution team were pushing for the Supreme Court to take up a dispute before the appeals process finishes at a lower judicial level over whether Trump really does have wide-ranging legal protections associated with his time in office that should stop the case. The Justice Department team wants a quicker resolution to the controversy so that trial can move forward.
