Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Courts

Marshall files brief opposing expedition of Trump’s prosecution

Marshall filed a brief in the federal court case involving Trump that opposes a request to expedite the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall listens to a reporter's question following oral arguments in Merrill v. Milligan, an Alabama redistricting case that could have far-reaching effects on minority voting power across the United States, outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2022. AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

On Wednesday, Attorney General Steve Marshall filed a brief in the federal court case involving former President Donald Trump, opposing a request to expedite the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case seeks to determine Trump’s criminal liability for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. Trump claims presidential immunity as a defense against prosecution. Last week, Special Counsel Jack Smith, the prosecutor in Trump’s case, received approval to expedite the appeals process and directly request the Supreme Court’s review before a lower court ruling.

Marshall, joined by 18 other states, opposes this expedited effort. Their brief argues that the prosecution has not provided a valid reason for the Supreme Court to review the case so soon. While Smith contends that hastening the appellate process serves the public interest, the brief asserts that this reasoning fails to meet the standards for the high court to expedite a review.

The brief states: “To be sure, the United States declares it ‘of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved’ immediately, so that if the claim is rejected, President Trump’s trial can ‘proceed as promptly as possible.’ But the United States never explains why waiting a few additional months for the Court of Appeals to decide this issue would harm the public interest.”

Marshall also alleges that the petition for an expedited review is a politically motivated attempt by the prosecution to “decide the 2024 election.”

He says: “In November of last year, Joe Biden vowed that Donald Trump would never become president again. Then, in August 2023, more than 30 months after the events alleged in the indictment, the federal government indicted Trump and now seeks to rush him to trial in March 2024. But the former President is entitled to appeal the trial court’s order denying him presidential immunity. Worried about losing his trial date, the special counsel is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. But he gives no reason why the public interest demands a rushed trial, suggesting the real motive is to influence the presidential election. The Court should not comply. Our brief points out that requesting this extraordinary remedy, without justifying its necessity, strongly indicates a political prosecution aimed at influencing the 2024 election.”

Marshall’s recent focus on federal and national issues may indicate his aspirations for a gubernatorial bid.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Patrick Darrington is a reporter at the Alabama Political Reporter. You can reach him at [email protected].

More from APR

Featured Opinion

If we taught DEI concepts in Alabama, people might wonder why the state AG was apologizing to a guy convicted of killing a Black...

Party politics

The party broke with its tradition of not backing candidates in primary elections.

State

Marshall wrote that the state agency cannot directly control what local libraries do, but can make state aid contingent on policies.

News

Political campaigns often witness complex financial maneuvers aimed at obscuring the real backers of a candidacy.