Special counsel Jack Smith is urging the Supreme Court to reject Donald Trump’s claims of immunity and proceed with a trial regarding charges of attempting to subvert the results of the 2020 election. Smith argues that Trump’s position lacks grounding in the Constitution, history, and the understanding that presidents are not above the law. He also highlights that past presidents have faced potential criminal liability for their actions after leaving office.
Smith’s filing has become one of the most closely watched cases of the current Supreme Court term. A ruling in favor of Trump could have significant implications not only for the election subversion case but also for other criminal charges pending against him. The court is scheduled to hear arguments on April 25, with a decision expected by July. Trump’s response to Smith’s filing is due next week.
Smith refuted Trump’s argument that granting immunity to former presidents is necessary to prevent them from being vulnerable to blackmail or extortion while in office. He emphasized that no person, including the president, is above the law. Furthermore, Smith disputed Trump’s claim that the laws he allegedly violated did not apply to former presidents, stating that this suggestion would essentially exempt the president from criminal law.
While Trump has proposed an alternative route for the justices to delay the trial until after the November election, Smith is pushing for a trial focused on Trump’s private actions. He contends that even if the court recognizes some form of immunity for former presidents, Trump’s private conduct in attempting to retain power through fraudulent means should still be subject to prosecution. Smith is determined to steer the court away from delaying the trial through additional proceedings in lower courts.
Trump’s argument for immunity has been rejected by lower federal courts, including a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit in February. Smith has highlighted the implications of Trump’s actions, noting that his efforts to maintain power through fraudulent means were part of a private scheme with private actors. The special counsel’s strong stance against Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity sets the stage for a critical legal battle in the Supreme Court’s upcoming hearings on the matter.
