Former President Donald J. Trump has requested that the Supreme Court delay a decision on whether he has "absolute immunity" for his actions as president, in regards to his federal prosecution for allegedly plotting to overturn the 2020 election. Trump's lawyers argued that the matter should be resolved in a cautious and deliberative manner, rather than at a fast pace. The request is part of Trump's strategy to delay the trial, which is set to begin on March 4. Trump's lawyers stated that the trial date has no special significance and urged the justices not to rush to decide the issues without careful deliberation.

Special counsel Jack Smith, however, has asked the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals court and address the immunity question on an expedited schedule. Smith's request for speedy treatment was criticized by Trump's legal team, who accused him of being motivated by partisan interests and attempting to subject Trump to a lengthy criminal trial during the height of a presidential campaign. The Supreme Court is likely to decide whether to hear the case soon, and if they do, arguments could be heard in January and a decision issued shortly thereafter. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case for now, the appeals court will consider the question, and the losing side is expected to appeal back to the Supreme Court.

In addition to the immunity question, the resolution of this case will impact the timing of Trump's other criminal cases and whether they go to trial before the 2024 election. Trump is seeking to delay his federal trials until after the election, where he hopes to win and potentially drop the charges against him. The Supreme Court is also expected to address another question related to the aftermath of the 2020 election, as Trump plans to appeal a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court that he is not eligible to be on the primary ballot in the state due to his alleged engagement in insurrection.

Smith's request to expedite the immunity case drew parallels to the 1974 case of United States v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that then-President Richard Nixon had to comply with a trial subpoena seeking tapes of his conversations in the Oval Office. Smith argued that the Supreme Court acted quickly in that case and should do the same now. Trump's lawyers, on the other hand, relied on the 1982 case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which recognized absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the "outer perimeter" of the president's official responsibility. They argued that the immunity issue should be carefully deliberated and that importance does not necessitate speed.

The Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear the case and the resolution of the immunity question will have significant implications for Trump's prosecution and potentially for future presidents' immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.