Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request to expedite the investigation into the question of whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in the federal case involving meddling in the 2020 presidential election, the former president’s attorney is rejoicing.
Habba discussed the possibility that the high court’s ruling may cause Trump’s federal 2020 election trial to continue past its currently scheduled start date of March 4 in an interview with Fox Business.
Smith asked the Supreme Court earlier this month to rule quickly on whether Republican front-runner Donald Trump is shielded from prosecution for offences committed while in office.
This claim has been essential to Trump’s legal team’s defence plan. It requested a stay of the proceedings after claims claiming immunity from the indictment were rejected by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. The case’s proceedings have ceased while the appeal is still underway.
Alina Habba told David Asman, the guest host of “Kudlow,” “I’m really pleased with the Supreme Court; it really restored my faith in my profession, to be honest.”
“The Supreme Court recognised this as false. Jack Smith’s application was not urgently required. He was trying to usurp the appellate division and go right up to the Supreme Court to have them hear issues of presidential immunity, which is an absolute immunity that presidents have for a very good reason,” Habba began.
“Frankly so they don’t have to have DAs and AGs come after them after their presidency in this political witch hunt, and the Supreme Court will today say that Jack Smith did not have reason to do so. He needed to stay the course, go through the normal procedures as everybody else, he had no urgency, and there was no dissent in the Supreme Court’s decisions. So, it was a very great day for team Trump, and we’ll keep pushing,” Habba added.
Attorneys representing former Attorney General Ed Meese and two of the nation’s leading constitutional experts filed a brief last week contending that Smith’s petition against Trump should be denied by the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that Trump’s appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional.
In their amicus brief, they argue that Smith’s lack of power renders his representation of the United States in its certiorari petition to the Supreme Court illegitimate. This is due to the fact that his appointment violates the “Appointments Clause” of the Constitution because Congress has not established the office he holds.
According to the filing, Smith was wrongfully appointed by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to a post that doesn’t exist and for which Garland is ineligible, Breitbart said.
Meese, Federalist Society co-chair Steven Calabresi, and eminent constitutional law expert Gary Lawson argue that Congress alone possesses the right to establish federal posts such as the one Smith already occupies, and Congress has not used this authority.
While the President and Vice President are designated by the Constitution, Congress is the only body authorised to create other offices because the Constitution requires them to be “established by law.”
Legislation has already been passed by Congress to authorise a similar position known as “independent counsel.” Nevertheless, in 1999, this statute expired.
The attorneys argue that Garland cannot delegate authority to a subordinate to carry out unapproved duties by Congress. Only a person holding the title of “officer” is required to have level of authority.