美国前总统唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)的律师周三要求美国最高法院(U.S. Supreme Court)不要介入关于特朗普攻击2020年大选结果的行为的总统豁免权的法律辩论，并拒绝特别顾问杰克·史密斯的请求请求加快审议该问题这可能会推翻史密斯针对特朗普的一个案件。
特朗普的律师在给高等法院的一份简报中写道，“特别顾问认为'[I]it ' s important public importance，被告的豁免主张由本法院解决，”他敦促法官允许联邦上诉法院首先考虑此事。
“每一个司法和谨慎的考虑都要求本法院允许上诉首先在特区巡回法庭进行。“欲速则不达”是一句古老的格言。它幸存了下来，因为它经常是正确的，”律师写道。
这份文件是对史密斯上周向大法官提交的极不寻常的请愿书的回应，该请愿书寻求就特朗普的豁免权问题做出快速判决，以便为他的联邦选举颠覆案扫清道路按计划在3月4日接受审判.
8月的特朗普不服罪被指控通过招募一系列所谓的“假选举人”，利用司法部进行“虚假选举犯罪调查”，试图招募副总统“改变选举结果”，并在1月6日的骚乱肆虐时宣传虚假的选举舞弊，以推翻2020年选举的结果——所有这些都是为了颠覆民主，继续掌权。
这位前总统否认所有不法行为，并谴责这些指控是“对政治对手的迫害”，史密斯和司法部已经拒绝了这些指控。
史密斯在他的请求中写道:“不需要过多的讨论就可以确认，这起案件——涉及被告试图通过违反联邦刑法来阻挠权力和平转移的指控——是公共重要性的顶点。”
“美国认识到这是一个非同寻常的请求，”史密斯写道。“这是一个非同寻常的案例。”
2023年12月7日，在纽约市的纽约州最高法院，前总统唐纳德·特朗普与他的律师克里斯托弗·基斯和艾莉娜·哈巴坐在被告席上。
只有在极少数紧急的、影响深远的情况下，最高法院才绕过上诉复审。
美国华盛顿巡回上诉法院已经加快了对地区法院裁决的审查，该裁决认定特朗普不能免于起诉。口头辩论定于1月9日。
法官们还没有一个固定的时间表来决定史密斯的请求，但很可能在1月初之前这样做。
特朗普的团队周三辩称，这样一个具有历史和政治重要性的问题值得“谨慎和审慎”的考虑，“而不是以极快的速度”
“在美国234年的历史中，没有一位总统因其官方行为而面临刑事起诉。直到19天前，还没有一家法院处理过是否存在这种起诉豁免的问题。他们写道:“迄今为止，没有一个上诉法院处理过这个问题。”
特朗普的律师在他的新文件中辩称，政府没有资格要求高等法院加快审查，因为它在地区法院获胜;公众利益保证了问题的谨慎解决，而不是因为选举的“党派动机”而仓促举行听证会;此外，围绕这个问题缺乏案例法意味着下级法院法官有更多的时间来权衡。
Trump asks Supreme Court not to weigh in, now, on whether he's immune from Jan. 6 charges
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay out of the legal debate over presidential immunity regarding his actions attacking the 2020 election results and reject special counsel Jack Smith'srequest for expedited consideration of the issue, which could upend one of Smith's cases against Trump.
"The Special Counsel contends that '[i]t is of imperative public importance that respondent's claims of immunity be resolved by this Court,'" Trump's attorneys wrote in a brief to the high court, urging the justices to allow a federal appeals court to consider the matter first.
"Every jurisdictional and prudential consideration calls for this Court to allow the appeal to proceed first in the D.C. Circuit. 'Haste makes waste' is an old adage. It has survived because it is right so often," the attorneys wrote.
The filing comes in response to Smith's highly unusual petition to the justices last week, seeking a fast-tracked judgment on the question of immunity for Trump in order to clear the way for his federal election subversion caseto go to trial as planned on March 4.
Trump in Augustpleaded not guiltyto charges of undertaking a "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called "fake electors," using the Justice Department to conduct "sham election crime investigations," trying to enlist the vice president to "alter the election results" and promoting false claims of a stolen election as the Jan. 6 riot raged -- all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.
The former president has denied all wrongdoing and denounced the charges as "a persecution of a political opponent," which Smith and the Department of Justice have rejected.
"It requires no extended discussion to confirm that this case--involving charges that respondent sought to thwart the peaceful transfer of power through violations of federal criminal law--is at the apex of public importance," Smith wrote in his request.
"The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request," Smith wrote. "This is an extraordinary case."
Only in rare instances of urgent and sweeping significance does the court bypass appellate review.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has already expedited review of a district court ruling that found Trump is not immune from prosecution. Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan. 9.
The justices are not on a fixed timeline to decide on Smith's request but are likely to do so before early January.
Trump's team argued Wednesday that a question of such historic and political weight merited a "cautious and deliberative" consideration "not at breakneck speed."
"In 234 years of American history, no President ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists. To this day, no appellate court has addressed it," they wrote.
Trump's attorneys argued in his new filing that the government has no standing to request an expedited high court review because it won in the district court; that public interest warrants a careful resolution of the question, not a rushed hearing because of a "partisan motivation" of the election; and, that a lack of case law around the question should mean more time for lower court judges to weigh in.
