Supreme Court Could Kill Jack Smith's Case With One Ruling

The Supreme Court could pour cold water on the federal election interference case against former President Donald Trump before it even goes to trial if the justices decide to rule in his favor on his immunity claim.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, asked the Supreme Court on Monday to immediately step in and rule on whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office—an extraordinary request that would ask the court to weigh in on the unprecedented prosecution of a former president.

The Supreme Court decides which cases it hears, so it would not be required to do so. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has already ruled that Trump is not immune from the prosecution, and Smith is asking the court to take up the claim by skipping a federal appeals court and ruling once and for all, in hopes of keeping the trial on track for its March start date.

But if the court does take up the matter at Smith's request, there is a chance it could side with Trump and grant his immunity—a ruling that would kill Smith's hopes of bringing the case to trial at all.

"An adverse ruling on the immunity issue would essentially end Smith's case against Trump," former federal prosecutor and elected state attorney Michael McAuliffe told Newsweek.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani agreed, telling Newsweek that if the Supreme Court establishes that Trump has presidential immunity, the former president cannot be charged by Smith.

Legal analyst Harry Litman explained on X, formerly Twitter, that there are three ways the Supreme Court could approach Smith's request: they could deny taking it up, agree to take it up and rule against Trump, or agree to take it up and rule in favor of Trump. If one of the first two options takes place, the court would pave the way for the trial to begin in four months. But if the court chooses the third option and ends up siding with Trump, "that's the end of the case."

Calling such a scenario "as cataclysmic as Bush v Gore," Litman called the Supreme Court's decision on immunity "now the main event." When the Supreme Court decided the controversial case of Bush v Gore in 2000, it settled the recount dispute in Florida and effectively handed George W. Bush the presidency.

McAuliffe said Smith's latest actions show that he is confident he's correct, and indicate he is neither afraid nor hesitant to have the Supreme Court weigh in and bring finality to the issue as soon as possible.

"It's the smart move given what's at stake," McAuliffe said, adding that should no immunity exist for Trump, a trial will proceed before the 2024 election.

Prosecutors have urged the courts to ensure that a trial takes place before the next election, during which Trump, who is the current GOP frontrunner, could win back the White House. Trump has already signaled that if he is elected, he would toss any federal case against him and seek revenge on his political rivals, including Smith.

"Justice delayed in the Trump criminal cases is the definition of justice denied, given Trump's stated intentions," McAuliffe said.