Special counsel Jack Smith has urged the Supreme Court to reject former President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity in the federal election interference case, arguing that criminal law applies to a president. In a 66-page filing, Smith refuted Trump’s argument that a president is immune from criminal prosecution, stating that there are no presidential powers that would entitle Trump to immunity in this case. He also emphasized that history does not support Trump’s claim, citing the lack of endorsement for criminal immunity for former presidents by the Framers and the potential criminal liability for official acts faced by all presidents after leaving office.
Smith’s filing comes ahead of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on April 25 regarding Trump’s immunity argument. Trump’s team had argued for “absolute immunity,” contending that criminal prosecution of the president would incapacitate future presidents. However, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and a federal appeals court have both rejected Trump’s argument, with Chutkan stating that a president does not have a lifelong “get-out-of-jail-free” pass. In his briefing, Smith highlighted that no presidential power in this case entitles the president to claim immunity from charges of fraud against the United States, obstruction of official proceedings, and denial of the right to vote.
Smith addressed the possibility that the Supreme Court may decide that former presidents have some level of immunity, but argued that such immunity should not bar the prosecution in this case. He emphasized that a president’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transfer of power should not be immunized, even if other conduct should be. Trump’s team has been attempting to delay the trial as much as possible, resulting in Trump’s trial in the federal election interference case being postponed, while he is scheduled to go on trial in a separate case in New York next week on allegations of falsified business statements related to hush money payments.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Trump’s case was considered a win for the former president, as it created further delays in his Washington, D.C., case. Trump’s team has been aiming to delay the trial as long as possible and has succeeded in pushing back the trial date. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all criminal charges against him, and his legal team continues to argue for immunity from criminal prosecution. The arguments presented by Special counsel Jack Smith highlight the complexities of the case and the ongoing legal battle over Trump’s immunity claims.
