From the brief:

While defendant Trump no doubt hopes that this Court will grant him the absolute immunity from legal accountability he has long sought, his primary strategy is to delay the trial until after the 2024 election for the purpose of denying the voters relevant information and perhaps avoiding a jury of his peers altogether.2 The questions before the Court thus implicate the public interest in the timely administration of justice in a way that no other case has in the nation’s history, and the Court should not intervene to enable defendant Trump’s strategy of thwarting that interest.3 While it was appropriate for the court of appeals to allow defendant Trump’s interlocutory appeal and consider his immunity claim, Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, (1982), there is no basis for continuing to freeze progress toward trial while defendant Trump makes one last effort to salvage a defense this Court is unlikely to uphold….

The information that will emerge from defendant Trump’s trial on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election—whether that information suggests guilt or innocence—is indisputably important to the public interest, and that is especially so in the midst of another presidential election. Not only may the evidence, outcome, and conduct of the trial be relevant to voters’ choice of presidential candidates, it may also shed light on the culpability (or lack thereof) of other public figures or organizations seeking voters’ support. As this Court recognized, “In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14–15 (1976). Of course, that interest in the ability to make informed choices, along with the general public interest in speedy resolution of criminal trials, must be balanced against the former president’s rights as a criminal defendant. But defendant Trump’s rights do not include the ability to run for office unencumbered by the continued administration of justice. And the damage to the public interest that would result from further delay far outweighs any legitimate interest defendant Trump might have here.