Special counsel Jack Smith has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss Donald Trump's assertions of broad immunity and to proceed with a trial on charges related to his alleged attempts to undermine the 2020 election results. Smith argued that Trump's stance lacks constitutional basis and historical precedent, emphasizing that former presidents are not above the law.
Smith's filing, considered a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle, challenges Trump's claim of immunity and asserts that some of Trump's actions were private in nature and not protected under official acts.
The Supreme Court is set 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 denying immunity could lead to future presidents being vulnerable to coercion while in office. He emphasized that accountability for alleged violations of federal law is essential, highlighting the principle that no individual, including the president, is exempt from legal scrutiny.
In response to Trump's suggestion that criminal statutes must explicitly mention the president to be applicable, Smith dismissed the notion as unfounded and potentially dangerous, as it could exempt the president from a wide range of criminal laws.
The legal dispute has already faced rejection from lower federal courts, with a unanimous decision against Trump's immunity claim by a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit in February.
Smith's latest brief aims to counter Trump's efforts to delay the trial until after the November election, proposing that even if some immunity is recognized for former presidents, Trump's private actions should still be subject to prosecution.
The case has significant implications not only for the election subversion charges but also for other pending criminal cases against Trump. The outcome of the Supreme Court's ruling will be closely monitored as it could shape the legal landscape for future presidential accountability.
