Former President Donald Trump is urging the Supreme Court to recognize that former presidents should have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for their actions while in office. He argues that the fact that his predecessors were not prosecuted in the past is evidence that there is no power to do so.
“According to Trump’s lawyers, no president, past or present, has ever faced criminal charges for their official actions from 1789 to 2023 – and for good reason. They argue that allowing criminal prosecution for official acts after a president leaves office would hinder the president’s ability to effectively govern and undermine the independence of the presidency itself.”
Lawyer D. John Sauer has filed a 51-page document with the Supreme Court, requesting a reversal of a lower court’s decision. Sauer argues that his claim of immunity was wrongly rejected and is demanding the dismissal of the charges against him.
According to Sauer, the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity will have far-reaching consequences that extend beyond Trump. It has the potential to shape the presidency for the entire history of our nation.
He expressed his opinion that it would be contrary to the rule of law for the court to implement a rule that gives the impression of a gerrymander specifically for President Trump.
The legal battle over immunity
The Supreme Court has recently agreed to review a decision made by the federal appeals court in Washington. This decision found that Trump can face prosecution for his alleged attempts to undermine the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election. The court has scheduled arguments for April 25.
The justices are currently deliberating on the extent to which a former president can claim immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during their time in office. The focus of their consideration is on whether official acts performed by a president can shield them from facing criminal charges. It is worth noting that the question at hand does not directly address former President Trump’s argument that a president can only be criminally charged if they have been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
Special counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting Trump, argues that the former president engaged in fraudulent conduct to maintain his position in office. Smith warns that granting Trump immunity from criminal liability for his attempts to overturn his electoral defeat goes against fundamental constitutional principles and poses a threat to democracy. We can expect a brief from Smith on April 8.
The Supreme Court has established that presidents are protected from civil liability, but it has not yet determined whether a former president can be criminally charged for actions performed during their time in office. Trump is the inaugural ex-president to face indictment, and he has pleaded not guilty to all allegations.
The immunity issue being considered by the Supreme Court has already affected two other criminal prosecutions that Trump is currently facing. One is in state court in New York, and the other is in federal court in South Florida.
In the case taking place in New York, Donald Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of falsifying business records, has requested a delay in the trial. His legal team has approached a judge in Manhattan, seeking to postpone the proceedings until after the Supreme Court has made a ruling on whether he is protected from criminal prosecution.
In South Florida, Smith accused Trump of 40 counts concerning his alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents after he left the White House. The former president is attempting to have the charges dismissed based on immunity and has pled not guilty.
The D.C. case has been in a state of suspension since December, as Trump lodged an appeal against U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s dismissal of his claim of extensive immunity. The case will continue to be on hold until the Supreme Court delivers its anticipated ruling by the end of June.
If the court rules in Trump’s favor, Smith’s prosecution of the former president in Washington will come to an end. However, if the court determines that he is not entitled to legal protections and allows the criminal case to proceed, it remains uncertain whether a trial could be held before the 2024 presidential election. Both Trump and President Biden are the presumptive presidential nominees for their respective parties in the upcoming election.
In December, Smith requested the intervention of the Supreme Court in the ongoing dispute regarding whether Trump can be held accountable for criminal charges. However, the justices chose not to expedite the case, allowing the federal appeals court to address the matter first.
In early February, a panel of three judges made a ruling stating that Trump cannot claim presidential immunity to protect himself from federal prosecution for what are claimed to be ‘official acts’.
“In this criminal case, citizen Trump now assumes the role of former President Trump, affording him the same defenses as any other individual facing criminal charges,” the panel stated in its opinion. The D.C. Circuit has granted Trump until Feb. 12 to request a temporary halt to the decision, setting the stage for the current confrontation before the justices.
Trump’s arguments to the Supreme Court
Trump’s legal team argued that the recent impeachment proceedings, where he was impeached twice by the House but acquitted by the Senate, have raised concerns about the potential consequences for future presidents. They believe that allowing a former president to face criminal charges could set a precedent that could affect future holders of the office.
According to Sauer, if our nation crosses this Rubicon, every future president will experience de facto blackmail and extortion during their time in office. Additionally, they will be subjected to politically motivated prosecution after leaving office for their most sensitive and controversial decisions. Sauer argues that this disturbing scenario would lead to a weak and ineffective president, ultimately causing harm to the American political system as a whole.
According to his argument, the current presidential decision-making will be severely hindered by the potential for future prosecution. He further contends that this poses a significant risk to the independence of the presidency itself.
According to Sauer, the court was informed that the criminal statutes that Trump is accused of violating do not explicitly state that they apply to the president or actions taken while in office.
In the filing, Sauer highlighted that Congress did not have the intention to incite a major conflict between branches of government by abolishing the president’s immunity and granting authorization for prosecution through loosely worded criminal laws.
According to him, federal courts lack the authority to pass judgment on a president’s official acts in criminal cases.
According to Trump’s lawyer, the courts are unable to scrutinize the President’s official actions, and therefore, they cannot bring charges, pass judgment, or incarcerate him based on those acts. Furthermore, conducting a jury trial solely on the grounds of his official actions is also deemed infeasible.
In reiterating his stance, he emphasized that a president can only face prosecution after undergoing the process of impeachment by the House and subsequent conviction by the Senate.
The Supreme Court has taken up several cases involving Trump, including the immunity case. Recently, the court made a significant ruling by overturning a decision from the Colorado Supreme Court. This ruling ordered Trump to be removed from the state’s presidential primary ballot based on a little-known provision of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states cannot prevent Trump from being on the ballot using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. However, there was a split among the justices regarding whether only Congress could enforce this clause.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider arguments on April 16 regarding the extent of a federal obstruction law. This law has been utilized to prosecute numerous individuals accused of participating in the January 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. Trump has been accused of violating this statute, and the court’s ruling could affect the validity of this charge and another one.
