Special Counsel Jack Smith urged the Supreme Court to reject former President Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution over allegedly attempting to overturn the 2020 election results.
Trump faces charges for conspiring to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s win.
“The President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general right to violate them,” prosecutors wrote.
Both a trial judge and appeals court rejected Trump’s assertion that his conduct constituted official presidential acts that should be immune.
In briefs, Smith’s team argued the Constitution does not provide criminal immunity for former presidents and the framers never endorsed it.
“The effective functioning of the Presidency does not require that a former President be immune from accountability for these alleged violations of federal criminal law,” prosecutors wrote. “To the contrary, a bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law — including the President.”
They said the indictment centers largely on Trump’s private conduct even if some official act immunity existed.
While Trump’s lawyers argued denial would allow political blackmail of presidents, Smith suggested the court could rule narrowly based on the facts of this case without setting broad precedent for future cases.
“A holding that petitioner has no immunity from the alleged crimes would suffice to resolve this case, leaving potentially more difficult questions that might arise on different facts for decision if they are ever presented,” Smith’s team said.
Smith urged the justices to uphold the lower court rulings that federal criminal law applies to the president.
