In a significant legal development, Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a request with the Supreme Court, urging them to allow the prosecution of former President Donald Trump to proceed. Smith's team has rejected Trump's claim of immunity in the D.C. election subversion case, arguing that his alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and hinder a peaceful transfer of power cannot be shielded by presidential immunity.

The filing from the Special Counsel's team seeks the Supreme Court's endorsement of a unanimous ruling made by a D.C. Circuit panel that had previously dismissed Trump's claim of immunity. The prosecution team contends that recognizing a novel and absolute immunity from federal criminal law for a former president would set a dangerous precedent, especially in a case involving the subversion of democracy.

Acknowledging Trump's request for a full review of the case by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Smith's team has pushed for an expedited schedule, calling for oral arguments to take place in March. They argue that a speedy and fair verdict is crucial, as there is a public interest in the resolution of the matter.

Trump's lawyers, on the other hand, have contended that prosecuting the former president would infringe on the First Amendment rights of millions of American voters. However, the Special Counsel's filing disputes this, stating that the charges against Trump relate to alleged efforts to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters, rather than protecting their rights.

Additionally, Smith's team counters Trump's argument that a former president cannot be prosecuted without impeachment and conviction. They assert that the separation of powers is designed to ensure checks and balances, not to grant impunity to a president for crimes committed through official acts by resigning from office or concealing criminal conduct until the end of the term.

Legal experts have praised Smith's filing for effectively countering Trump's arguments. Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal commended the team for turning Trump's best argument against him. Katyal also highlighted that the Supreme Court operates as a court of review and prefers legal issues to be examined in lower courts, indicating that the unanimous decision by the Court of Appeals should be respected.

Notably, MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin commented on Smith's handling of Trump's claim that a president should be treated differently. Rubin explained that Smith's team emphasizes the gravity of the alleged crimes and the necessity for a speedy trial, arguing against Trump's attempts to delay proceedings.

As this high-profile legal battle continues to unfold, the Supreme Court will now decide whether to take up the case. The outcome could have far-reaching implications and set important precedents regarding presidential immunity and the accountability of past leaders for their actions.

(Note: Information provided is based on the context given and does not include new information or additional analysis.