Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on Thursday that he is joining an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court that opposes Special Counsel Jack Smith’s petition to request that SCOTUS take up an appeal for presidential immunity by former President Donald Trump.

Texas is officially joining 18 other states in the brief, which acknowledges that this case is of “tremendous public significance” but also signifies “the gravity of a case is not enough to bypass ‘normal appellate practice.’”

“The United States’ petition repeatedly proclaims — but never explains why — ‘[i]t is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” reads the brief.

A press release from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) states that the actions taken by Smith in an attempt to circumvent the standard process are “extraordinarily unusual.”

“To elevate the petition to SCOTUS before a lower court has considered the issue, the petitioner must show a clear public need for immediate action. Smith, representing the United States government, has not demonstrated the urgency he claims justifies this attempt to bypass the ordinary appellate process,” wrote the OAG in the press release.

These statements are similar to what Trump’s legal team wrote in his brief in opposition, stating that Smith’s team is attempting to rush one of the “most novel, complex, and momentous legal issues in American history.”

“In doing so, the Special Counsel seeks to embroil this Court in a partisan rush to judgment on some of the most historic and sensitive questions that the Court may ever decide. The Court should decline that invitation,” Trump’s team wrote in its filing.

For his part, Smith argued that the “Court’s immediate review of that question is the only way to achieve its timely and definitive resolution.”

“Respondent agrees that the important constitutional question in this case will require this Court’s review. But he maintains that the Court should wait for the appellate process to unfold below so that this Court has the benefit of the court of appeals’ decision,” added Smith when discussing the counterargument from Trump’s team.

“That suggestion is misguided. The public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this Court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves — for the first time in our Nation’s history — criminal charges against a former President based on his actions while in office.”

The case revolves around Trump’s indictment on four charges relating to his disputing the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Trump was indicted on the four counts on August 1. He filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on October 5 on the grounds of presidential immunity, according to a brief in opposition filed by Trump’s attorneys.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is scheduled to finish briefing for the indictment on January 2, 2024, with oral arguments expected to occur on January 9, 2024.

However, it is still unclear whether the Supreme Court will choose to elevate the case before a D.C. Court of Appeals ruling.