Alabama and 18 other states, including Idaho, filed a brief in support of Donald Trump.
The brief asks the court to not grant special prosecutor Jack Smith’s request for Certiorari before judgment.
Smith filed a petition for Certiorari before judgment earlier this month.
He is requesting that his case against Trump jump the appeals process and that the Supreme Court make its judgment now.
Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey shared about the brief on X earlier Thursday.
“BREAKING: We have filed a brief at the United States Supreme Court to halt Jack Smith’s move to circumvent the appeals process in his prosecution of President Trump.
The DOJ’s attempt to accelerate the prosecution is blatantly partisan, and SCOTUS must reject it.”
BREAKING: We have filed a brief at the United States Supreme Court to halt Jack Smith’s move to circumvent the appeals process in his prosecution of President Trump.
The DOJ’s attempt to accelerate the prosecution is blatantly partisan, and SCOTUS must reject it. pic.twitter.com/kJw2krar6U
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) December 21, 2023
Idaho’s Attorney General Raul Labrador (R) has a history of pushing back against the Biden administration.
The brief raises questions about the legitimacy of the request made by Smith. It also points out that it appears Smith is trying to interfere with the 2024 election.
The brief reads in part:
“It should go without saying that interference with President Trump’s political campaign is not a legitimate reason to seek certiorari before judgment.
“The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict.”
ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 3-1.2(b) (4th ed. 2017).
And a “prosecutor should not permit the prosecutor’s professional judgment or obligations to be affected by the prosecutor’s … political … interests.” Id. 3-1.7(f).
“All criminal defendants have a right to a fair and orderly process.
“The gravity of this particular prosecution is all the more reason to ensure that right. For reasons unknown, the prosecution has sought and secured an expedited trial and an expedited appeal.
“But this Court’s Rule 11 requires more than a vague Government interest in speedy trials.
“The United States has not shown that its plan to take President Trump to trial on March 4, 2024, “is of such imperative public importance as … to require immediate” intervention by this Court. Sup. Ct. R. 11.”
We shall soon find out what the highest court in the land will decide.
