Former President Donald Trump is opposed to the special counsel's request for the Supreme Court to quickly determine whether he has immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office. The special counsel, Jack Smith, had asked the high court to review a lower-court ruling that denied Trump immunity in an election subversion criminal case. Trump's legal team argues that the issue should be settled by the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., before reaching the Supreme Court.

In court papers filed on Wednesday, Trump's attorneys emphasized the need to slow down the litigation over key issues, stating that the special counsel is trying to rush the decision without the normal consideration by at least one court of appeals. They urged the Supreme Court to decline the invitation for an expedited review at this time, emphasizing the importance of careful deliberation on complex and historic issues such as presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

Legal analysts have noted that Trump's opposition primarily focuses on the timing of the Court's review rather than the eventual resolution of the question of immunity. Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, highlighted the Supreme Court's recent usage of expedited reviews and stated that it ultimately depends on whether the justices want to decide the issue immediately or after the appeals court has ruled.

While Trump's team acknowledges that the appeals court has already granted expedited review, they argue that adhering to the ordinary appeals process will allow the court to provide prior consideration of the case, which aligns with the Supreme Court's historical preference. They contend that caution, not haste, is necessary given the politically charged environment surrounding the case.

The appeals court is currently reviewing the immunity ruling issued by district Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump's criminal case. Last week, Chutkan temporarily paused all procedural deadlines in the case pending the outcome of the appeal.

In addition to immunity, prosecutors have also asked the appeals court to determine whether Trump is protected by double jeopardy, with defense lawyers arguing that he cannot be tried for the same alleged actions after being acquitted during his impeachment trial.

The Supreme Court now has the option to announce whether they will hear the case. Even if they decide not to hear it before the appeals court's ruling, it is likely that the case will come before them again in the near future, as the appeals court has committed to expediting its review.

The resolution of Trump's claims of immunity holds significant public importance, and Smith's team argues that the trial should proceed promptly if his claim of immunity is rejected. They emphasize that only the Supreme Court can definitively resolve these claims.

As the legal battle unfolds, the timing and ultimate decision on Trump's immunity from prosecution will continue to be closely watched by legal experts, politicians, and the public alike.