Attorney General Garland’s decision to issue a public statement saying that he “agrees” with Special Counsel Jack Smith that a “speedy trial” is in order for President Trump will only further a growing sense — a core contention of the 45th president — that Mr. Smith’s prosecutions of the likely Republican nominee for president are political.  

Mr. Garland on Friday told CNN that Mr. Smith “has urged speedy trials, with which I agree. And it’s now in the hands of the judicial system, not in our hands. Special prosecutors followed the facts and the law.” Mr. Smith has urged expedited hearings of appeals relating to his January 6 case against Mr. Trump at both the District of Columbia circuit court and the Supreme Court.

Mr. Smith is likely hoping to win a conviction of Mr. Trump before the November election, after which, should he win, Mr. Trump could scuttle the prosecution by shutting down the federal cases against him or issuing himself a pardon. Recent polls have shown that some Republican voters would be less likely to vote for Mr. Trump in the general election if he is convicted.

In a filing yesterday in his Mar-a-Lago case, Mr. Trump cited “conspicuously timed and tellingly defensive public statements” on the part of Mr. Garland. The attorney general, the 45th president alleges, “inappropriately sought to place” the Department of Justice’s “imprimatur behind the Office’s untenable demand for a ‘speedy trial’ in this case.”

It was Mr. Garland, a one-time United States circuit judge and foiled nominee for the Supreme Court,  who named Mr. Smith as special counsel after the New York Times, quoting unnamed White House sources, said President Biden wanted Mr. Garland to stop acting like “a ponderous judge” and to have Mr. Trump prosecuted. 

Mr. Garland acted three days after Mr. Trump announced his intention to run for president in the 2024 election. Special counsel regulations mandate that the attorney general can fire the special counsel for “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause.”

Mr. Trump paints a picture of Mr. Garland working in concert with the special counsel to take “unprecedented steps to fuel biased press coverage and public interest in the proceedings in order to interfere with President Trump’s leading campaign for the presidency.” Mr. Trump has called for his criminal cases to be delayed until after the start of a possible second term in the White House. 

The Constitution ordains, in the Sixth Amendment, that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” The Department of Justice explains in a criminal resource manual that a “defendant’s right to a speedy trial has constitutional and statutory underpinnings.” 

Courts have held that the government, too, has an interest in avoiding a trial that moves like molasses. That, though, has no explicitly stated constitutional basis. The Constitution names only “the accused” as the party that shall “enjoy” the right to a speedy and public trial.

Mr. Smith has, in the January 6 case, sought to keep the case moving even as Judge Tanya Chutkan has decided that pre-trial preparation be “held in abeyance” while Mr. Trump appeals the judge’s ruling that he is not entitled to presidential immunity. He also contends that the special counsel’s continual filings amount to a contempt of court. 

Judge Chutkan failed to make that finding, reasoning that the “basic function of a deadline is not to authorize a filing, but to time-limit it; correspondingly, the lifting of a deadline removes that time limit but does not necessarily bar the filing.”

This means that Judge Chutkan’s order did not interdict “voluntary rather than obligatory compliance.”  Nevertheless, she agrees with Mr. Trump that the “parties be forbidden from filing any further substantive pretrial motions without first seeking leave from the court.”

The immunity issue is now before the riders of the District of Columbia Circuit, and a ruling could come down at any time. Whoever loses will have the right to appeal for an en banc hearing and for consideration before the high court. Judge Chutkan’s renewed pause recognizes that Mr. Smith’s filings have put a “cognizable” burden on the 45th president.