We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

The filing is expected to comprehensively outline the special counsel’s argument on how the Supreme Court ruling applies to Trump’s criminal case.

Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a legal brief under seal on Thursday in his Jan. 6 case against former President Donald Trump.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had given Smith until 5 p.m. on Thursday to file a new legal brief after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump was protected by some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

“We have complied with the court’s order,” Peter Carr, spokesperson for the special counsel’s office, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.

The filing is expected to comprehensively outline the special counsel’s argument on how the Supreme Court ruling applies to Trump’s criminal case. Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan allowed Smith to file a brief running as long as 180 pages.

Submitted under seal means there is no public access to the brief or accompanying filings. The filings are expected to include documentary evidence, grand jury transcripts, and FBI witness materials, according to court filings.

Judge Chutkan will decide whether to make the filing public.

Related Stories

Trump’s lawyers sought to delay the assessment of Trump’s immunity matter, highlighting issues with the timing and length of Smith’s filing.

Trump’s lawyers argued that it would be “incredibly unfair in the sense that they’re able to put in the public record at this very sensitive time in our nation’s history.”

The judge rejected this argument, saying the “Defendant’s concern with the political consequences of these proceedings does not bear on the pretrial schedule.”

On the issue of the expected length of Smith’s brief, Trump’s lawyers argued it was “tantamount to a premature and improper special counsel report,” which is usually provided at the conclusion of a special counsel’s work.

“Defendant does not explain how those putative violations cause him legal prejudice in this case, nor how this court is bound by or has jurisdiction to enforce Department of Justice policy,” the judge wrote.

Superseding Indictment

After the Supreme Court’s ruling, Smith sought a superseding indictment from a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in the case.

Filed on Aug. 27, the superseding indictment kept the same charges but narrowed the allegations against Trump by removing allegations involving his interactions with the former Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark, who is no longer listed as a co-conspirator.

The former president pleaded not guilty to the revised indictment on Sept. 3, waiving his right to be present at the arraignment.

Trump has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The revised indictment maintains these charges.

The Supreme Court held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for acts that fall within their “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” a presumption of immunity for their official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.

The justices found that Trump receives absolute immunity from prosecution for his work with the DOJ. However, for his alleged acts involving communication with state electors and his communications of Jan. 6, 2021, the high court remanded the issue to the district court to determine whether his actions were official.

Once both parties present their arguments on which charges should be dropped or maintained in the revised indictment, the matter is now before Judge Chutkan to determine which of Trump’s actions were official and which were unofficial.

Sam Dorman contributed to this report.

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

The filing is expected to comprehensively outline the special counsel’s argument on how the Supreme Court ruling applies to Trump’s criminal case.

Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a legal brief under seal on Thursday in his Jan. 6 case against former President Donald Trump.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had given Smith until 5 p.m. on Thursday to file a new legal brief after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump was protected by some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

“We have complied with the court’s order,” Peter Carr, spokesperson for the special counsel’s office, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.

The filing is expected to comprehensively outline the special counsel’s argument on how the Supreme Court ruling applies to Trump’s criminal case. Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan allowed Smith to file a brief running as long as 180 pages.

Submitted under seal means there is no public access to the brief or accompanying filings. The filings are expected to include documentary evidence, grand jury transcripts, and FBI witness materials, according to court filings.

Judge Chutkan will decide whether to make the filing public.

Related Stories

Trump’s lawyers sought to delay the assessment of Trump’s immunity matter, highlighting issues with the timing and length of Smith’s filing.

Trump’s lawyers argued that it would be “incredibly unfair in the sense that they’re able to put in the public record at this very sensitive time in our nation’s history.”

The judge rejected this argument, saying the “Defendant’s concern with the political consequences of these proceedings does not bear on the pretrial schedule.”

On the issue of the expected length of Smith’s brief, Trump’s lawyers argued it was “tantamount to a premature and improper special counsel report,” which is usually provided at the conclusion of a special counsel’s work.

“Defendant does not explain how those putative violations cause him legal prejudice in this case, nor how this court is bound by or has jurisdiction to enforce Department of Justice policy,” the judge wrote.

Superseding Indictment

After the Supreme Court’s ruling, Smith sought a superseding indictment from a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in the case.

Filed on Aug. 27, the superseding indictment kept the same charges but narrowed the allegations against Trump by removing allegations involving his interactions with the former Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark, who is no longer listed as a co-conspirator.

The former president pleaded not guilty to the revised indictment on Sept. 3, waiving his right to be present at the arraignment.

Trump has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The revised indictment maintains these charges.

The Supreme Court held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for acts that fall within their “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” a presumption of immunity for their official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.

The justices found that Trump receives absolute immunity from prosecution for his work with the DOJ. However, for his alleged acts involving communication with state electors and his communications of Jan. 6, 2021, the high court remanded the issue to the district court to determine whether his actions were official.

Once both parties present their arguments on which charges should be dropped or maintained in the revised indictment, the matter is now before Judge Chutkan to determine which of Trump’s actions were official and which were unofficial.

Sam Dorman contributed to this report.