In a recent legal development, Special Counsel Jack Smith's plea to the Supreme Court urging them not to delay the federal election obstruction trial of former President Donald Trump has faced criticism from attorney Bill Shipley. Shipley, a former federal prosecutor representing defendants linked to the January 6 attack on the Capitol, suggested that Smith may have "shot himself in the foot" with his wording when stating that the nation has a "compelling interest" in a prompt trial for Trump.

Trump is facing four charges related to allegations of illegal attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. He has pleaded not guilty and is seeking to have the case dismissed, claiming immunity from prosecution for actions taken during his time in the White House. Critics have accused Trump of attempting to delay the trial until after the 2024 presidential election, potentially gaining leverage over the Department of Justice's handling of the case if he were to be reelected.

In a letter addressed to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Special Counsel Smith urged the justices to uphold a previous ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which rejected Trump's claims of absolute immunity. Smith argued that the trial proceedings should continue without further delay, highlighting the importance of a prompt and fair resolution for the public interest, particularly given the gravity of the charges against a former president involved in alleged criminal efforts to subvert the electoral process.

Attorney Bill Shipley reacted to Smith's wording, suggesting that the special counsel's mention of the "public interest" as a justification for the court's timeline may not sit well with the Supreme Court justices. Shipley expressed doubt that the court would appreciate being lectured on their constitutional role and potential concerns over acting against the public interest.

Smith's office declined to comment on the matter, while former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman characterized the special counsel's request as a predictable, yet impactful move. Litman emphasized the urgency conveyed in Smith's filing, acknowledging that the speed of the trial process is of paramount importance, something the Supreme Court will likely take into account when considering the case.

Shipley had previously criticized Smith for bypassing the lower courts and immediately seeking resolution from the Supreme Court regarding the immunity issue. Smith argued that an immediate ruling on the immunity debate by the country's highest court was necessary to prevent trial delays. The Supreme Court had rejected Smith's initial request in December 2023, asserting that the decision on immunity should first be taken up by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Trump's legal team is currently asking the Supreme Court to halt the trial proceedings while they seek reconsideration of the ruling from the appeals court, or for the Supreme Court to intervene and review the lower court's decision through a "Cert petition."

The different perspectives on Special Counsel Smith's plea to the Supreme Court suggest a continuing rift over the timeline and handling of Trump's federal election obstruction trial. As the legal battle continues, speculation grows about the potential impact on the trial and its implications for future presidential immunity challenges.