Special counsel Jack Smith is redoubling his efforts against former President Donald Trump after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against him last week.

Now, Smith will try to prevent Trump from engaging in “partisan political attacks” as part of his upcoming election subversion trial.

Regarding the case, CNN’s Katelyn Polantz explained the significance of the filing.

“Jack Smith wants to cut out all of the political arguments that Donald Trump makes on the campaign trail from the courtroom for whenever he is before a jury,” Polantz said.

“The court filing that came in today says a couple of things. They want the judge to say Trump can’t argue that he was being politically persecuted; that’s why he is going to be on trial. They don’t want him to be able to suggest disinformation about the 2020 election, suggest that he believed that the election was stolen from him. That shouldn’t be something before the jury, the Justice Department says at this time. They also say that Trump’s team shouldn’t be able to blame law enforcement, or foreign actors, or secret agents for what happened on January 6th,” Polantz added.

As noted by The Hill, one passage from Smith’s court filing states: “Through public statements, filings, and argument in hearings before the Court, the defense has attempted to inject into this case partisan political attacks and irrelevant and prejudicial issues that have no place in a jury trial.”

“Although the Court can recognize these efforts for what they are and disregard them, the jury — if subjected to them — may not. The Court should not permit the defendant to turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation and should reject his attempt to inject politics into this proceeding,” the filing added.

Meanwhile, attorneys for former Attorney General Ed Meese and two of the top constitutional scholars in the country filed a brief on Wednesday arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court must reject Smith’s petition against Trump because his appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional.

Their amicus brief contends that Smith’s representation of the United States in his petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court is invalid due to his lack of authority. This is because Congress has not established the position he holds, and his appointment is in violation of the Constitution’s “Appointments Clause.”