Special prosecutor Jack Smith has faced two significant legal setbacks this week after the Supreme Court ruled against his efforts in two pending cases. On Monday, the court decided that presidents have limited immunity for official actions, while on Friday, they ruled in favor of a Jan. 6 defendant accused of obstruction. These decisions significantly hinder Smith’s case against former President Trump, adding to his already challenged legal record.
Smith was appointed in 2022 by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee an investigation into Trump’s potential involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election outcome. He has charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, as well as conspiracy against rights. Smith had aimed to bring Trump to trial before the 2024 election, but the Supreme Court’s rulings have disrupted this timeline and impacted the legal merits of the case.
John Shu, a constitutional attorney with experience in both Bush administrations, believes Smith’s strategy might have been too aggressive. Shu points out that Smith has a history of pushing the limits of the law, potentially overcharging defendants to pressure them into plea deals. He highlights Smith’s reputation for being a hyper-aggressive prosecutor.
The Supreme Court’s rulings have raised concerns about Smith’s track record. In 2016, Smith secured a conviction against former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell on corruption charges, but this was overturned by the Supreme Court in an 8-0 decision. The court criticized the government’s expansive interpretation of the federal bribery statute, warning that unchecked power of prosecutors can threaten the separation of powers.
Smith has faced other notable losses in the past. In 2012, he lost the prosecution of former senator and Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, and in 2017, a mistrial resulted from his prosecution of Senator Bob Menendez on public corruption charges.
Shu argues that the Supreme Court’s precedent should have signaled to Smith to avoid misusing obstruction provisions. He sees the recent ruling as predictable. However, he acknowledges that Smith’s strategy was understandable from a practical and political standpoint, given the large number of defendants charged with obstruction in relation to the Jan. 6 events, including those involved in the Capitol riot.
The Supreme Court’s decisions have generated significant attention and debate, highlighting the legal and political complexities surrounding the investigation into former President Trump. The impact of these rulings on the ongoing cases and their potential influence on the 2024 election remain to be seen.
