In response to special counsel Jack Smith's request for the Supreme Court to swiftly determine the extent of Donald Trump's immunity from actions concerning the 2020 presidential election, the former president's legal team has filed a plea asking the court to defer the decision for now. The outcome of this legal question holds significant weight in Trump's criminal prosecution in Washington for election interference.

Led by former Missouri Solicitor General Dean John Sauer, Trump's lawyers argued that Smith provided no compelling reason for the Supreme Court to immediately intervene without allowing the appeals court process to unfold. The lawyers accused Smith of confusing the "public interest" with a partisan desire to subject Trump to a lengthy criminal trial that could overlap with the upcoming presidential campaign, where Trump stands as a top candidate and primary opponent to the current administration.

With Trump's response now in their possession, the Supreme Court could make a decision within days regarding Smith's request. Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has already scheduled oral arguments for January 9th on the same matter.

The justices now face the choice of either intervening immediately, foregoing the appeals court's input, or waiting to observe how the lower court handles the issue. Sauer noted that the justices would benefit greatly from the prior consideration of an appellate court on such significant and historic questions.

While conceding the gravity of the case, Sauer emphasized that the Supreme Court's intervention would be warranted only if the appeals court rules against Trump.

The timing of the decision carries crucial importance, as the trial is set to commence in March and the 2024 presidential race, in which Trump is the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, is already gaining momentum.

Earlier in the month, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, overseeing the election interference case, denied Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment based on presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. Trump promptly appealed and requested a hold on the case.

Trump's legal team argues, in part, that his actions challenging the election results fell within the scope of his official responsibilities as president, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. Consequently, they contend that Trump is immune from prosecution based on established Supreme Court precedent.

Furthermore, the lawyers assert that Trump's acquittal by the Senate in the impeachment proceedings related to his role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol by his supporters, during the certification of President Joe Biden's election win, prevents him from facing separate criminal charges for the same actions.

Counter to these arguments, Smith maintains that Trump's efforts to overturn the election were not part of his official responsibilities as president. He also points to the constitutional language on impeachment, which allows for independent criminal proceedings.

Last August, a federal grand jury in Washington indicted Trump on four charges: conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction, and conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted. During his arraignment hearing, Trump pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors allege that Trump utilized "dishonesty, fraud, and deceit" to undermine the 2020 election with persistent and destabilizing lies about election fraud. The indictment came after an investigation that included testimonies from numerous White House aides and advisers, including those in senior positions, such as former Vice President Mike Pence.

The election interference case is one of four criminal prosecutions that Trump currently faces. As the Supreme Court weighs the decision on the key issue of his immunity, the outcome could have substantial ramifications on Trump's legal future.