Special counsel Jack Smith urged the Supreme Court on Monday to dismiss President Trump's assertion of broad immunity from federal prosecution. Smith argued that Trump's purported actions to ‘overturn' the outcome of the 2020 election undermine core constitutional principles safeguarding democracy.
In a filing submitted to the Supreme Court, Smith and his team of prosecutors contended that Trump is claiming an unprecedented and extensive immunity from criminal laws applicable to all citizens. They asserted that Trump's alleged efforts to obstruct the peaceful transfer of presidential authority fall beyond the scope of his official duties.
The special counsel told the justices that there are “layered safeguards” in place when initiating a criminal case, ensuring that prosecutions undergo thorough scrutiny and that no president is deterred from fulfilling their duties due to the prospect of facing prosecution for federal crimes.
Smith contended that there is no evidence indicating that Congress intended to exempt the president from federal criminal statutes.
Smith's filing outlines the arguments his office will present before the justices on April 25, when they gather to consider Trump's attempt to halt his federal prosecution in Washington, D.C. Last month, Trump submitted his opening brief, urging the Supreme Court to conclude that former presidents enjoy extensive safeguards against criminal prosecutions for actions undertaken during their time in office.
In his submission to the court, the special counsel emphasized that “federal criminal law applies to the president,” dismissing Trump's assertion to the contrary as a “radical suggestion.”
Prosecutors asserted that even if the Supreme Court were to recognize some level of immunity for a former president's “official acts” during their tenure, such immunity would not shield Trump from prosecution. Smith and his team argued that the allegations against Trump pertain to a “private scheme with private actors to achieve a private end,” specifically Trump's endeavor to retain power through ‘fraudulent means.'
The special counsel explained to the court that an alleged scheme to ‘overturn’ the results of a presidential election represents the “paradigmatic example of conduct that should not be immunized,” even if certain other actions might warrant immunity.
Read the filing here.
