Few legal doctrines have garnered as much scrutiny and controversy as presidential immunity, particularly in the context of Donald Trump’s tenure in the Oval Office.
Amicus brief with the Supreme Court
via Forbes Breaking News
Twenty-two state attorneys general filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court requesting a stay on the prosecution of Donald Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith until the Court rules on whether the trial is permitted by the Constitution.
Prosecute Trump before the 2024 election
via Pixabay
The brief argues that Smith’s rush to prosecute Trump before the 2024 election raises suspicions of political motivation and questions the integrity of the justice system.
Intense legal scrutiny
via Queen City News
As the 45th President of the United States, Trump’s actions and policies often found themselves under intense legal scrutiny, prompting debates over the extent of his immunity from prosecution while in office.
First time in our Nation’s history
via LiveNOW from FOX
“Before a former President faces a federal criminal trial for the first time in our Nation’s history, this Court should decide whether such a trial is permitted by the Constitution,” the brief states.
Presidents have immunity
via Pixabay
A stay is needed for the Court to determine if sitting presidents have immunity from prosecution for alleged crimes committed while in office.
DOJ waited over two years
via CBS TEXAS
The brief also questions why the DOJ waited over two years to bring charges related to Trump’s actions surrounding the 2020 election results.
Timing is suspicious
via NewsNation
“To say the least, the timing is suspicious, and it warrants explanation,” the brief reads. “But the United States has never offered one.”
Criminal prosecution
via Pixabay
“[T]iming a criminal prosecution to influence an election is no way to protect democracy, and it is not a legitimate end of law enforcement,” the brief adds.
Constitutional compliance
via New York Post
They assert slowing down the process is necessary to ensure constitutional compliance and public confidence given Trump’s potential candidacy in 2024.
Potentially a future President
via CBS
“Contrary to the prosecution’s haste, the fact that the defendant is a former President is a reason to move carefully—to be sure the prosecution is constitutional from inception. And the fact that the defendant is potentially a future President is even more reason to ensure the appearance and reality of fairness,” the brief reads.
Trump deserves a fair trial
via 60 Minutes
The states argue that as a former and possibly future president, Trump deserves a fair and careful process free from any appearance of political interference.
No presidential immunity
via NBC
A federal appeals court ruled that former President Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity from prosecution regarding alleged criminal acts related to 2020 election interference. The court rejected Trump’s claim of immunity, upholding a trial judge’s ruling.
Expected to appeal
via Pixabay
Trump is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court as part of an effort to delay the case against him by special counsel Jack Smith.
Trump’s asserted interests
via NBC News
“We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed,” the panel stated.
Compel A Decision
via Pixabay
“We conclude that ‘[c]oncerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government’ compel the rejection of his claim of immunity in this case,” the panel added.
Jack Smith’s Move
via CNN
Smith aims to move the trial forward in March, potentially impacting Trump’s political prospects in the 2024 election.
Block a lower-court ruling
via Pixabay
Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to block a lower-court ruling rejecting his claim of presidential immunity in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His lawyers argue that prosecution would disrupt his reelection bid and pose a threat to the presidency.
Impact Future Elections
via Fox News
The case’s outcome will impact future elections.
Presidential immunity
via Pixabay
Legal experts argue that presidential immunity only applies to official acts, not personal actions, and that prosecuting Trump would serve as a deterrent to future candidates.
Constitutional law professor
via 60 Minutes
Hofstra University constitutional law professor James Sample, said, “Trump’s attempt to use election disruption concerns as a bulwark against prosecution for actions aimed at not only disrupting, but actually overturning, a valid election is, at best, cognitive dissonance.”
Supreme Court Decision
via Pixabay
“I sincerely doubt that the Supreme Court wants to sanction future January 6’s,” he continued.
Criminal defendant
via NBC News
The D.C. Circuit Court previously ruled, “Former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant.”
Unbounded authority to commit crimes
via Pixabay
“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” their ruling continued.
Official duties of the president
via Fox News
David Schultz, professor of political science at Hamline University, said, “The prosecution here is of acts that were not part of the official duties of the president.”
Threat of criminal prosecution
via Pixabay
“To allow former presidents carte blanche immunity from all criminal prosecution renders the president above the law and sets a dangerous precedent that he can do whatever he wants. The threat of criminal prosecution is one of several checks to restrain presidential abuses of power, and it also ensures, as Article II Section 3 of the Constitution states, that the president takes care that the laws are faithfully executed. One cannot ‘take care’ if one can violate criminal law with impunity,” he continued.
Unfairly limits my ability
via VICE
Schultz added, “One cannot do something wrong and then argue that this wrongdoing unfairly limits my ability to wage an effective political campaign. Trump should have thought of all of this before he did what he did,” explained the professor.
Failure to prosecute
via Fox News
“If presidents are sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, failing to prosecute them as candidates essentially says that they are exempt from honoring or upholding the very oath they must take if elected to that office,” he concluded. Failure to prosecute would set a bad precedent and imply exemption from upholding the presidential oath.
