Special counsel Jack Smith has urged a federal appeals court to reject former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from prosecution, stating that such a suggestion “threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation” of the country.
Smith’s team submitted the filing ahead of next month’s arguments on the question of whether a former president can be prosecuted for actions taken while in office. The case is currently being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but it is likely to eventually reach the Supreme Court. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court denied prosecutors’ request for a quick ruling, affirming that Trump can be forced to stand trial for charges related to his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election results.
The outcome of this dispute is crucial for both sides, as the case has been put on hold while Trump asserts his immunity claims in the appeals court. Prosecutors are hoping for a swift judgment rejecting these arguments in order to restart the case and maintain the scheduled trial date of March 4 in federal court in Washington. On the other hand, Trump’s lawyers would benefit from a prolonged appeals process that could significantly delay the case and potentially extend it beyond the November election.
Trump’s legal team argues that the appeals court should dismiss the case, claiming that as a former president, he is immune from prosecution for actions carried out in his official capacity. Smith’s team asserts that no such immunity exists in the Constitution or in case law, and even if it did, Trump’s actions in his attempt to retain power were not part of his official responsibilities as president.
The indictment against Trump includes four charges related to his alleged involvement in the disruption of the certification of electoral votes on January 6, 2021. Prosecutors argue that these actions were outside the scope of a president’s official duties and were solely intended to aid his reelection campaign. They emphasize that allowing a president to unlawfully retain power through criminal means without the possibility of prosecution could endanger the presidency itself and undermine the foundations of the democratic system.
Prosecutors stress the importance of accountability in our constitutional system, stating that while the presidency plays a vital role, so does the principle of holding individuals accountable for wrongdoing. They argue that Trump’s immunity claim, rather than upholding the constitutional framework, actually threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of the Republic.
A three-judge panel is scheduled to hear arguments on January 9. Two of the judges, J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, were appointed by President Joe Biden, while the third judge, Karen LeCraft Henderson, was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush.
Previously, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s immunity arguments, stating that the presidency does not provide a “get-out-of-jail free card.” Trump’s lawyers appealed that decision, leading Smith to seek an expedited decision from the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court recently denied that request without explanation, leaving the matter to be decided by the appeals court.
In addition to this case, Trump is facing three other criminal prosecutions. He is charged in Florida with illegally retaining classified documents, faces a state prosecution in Georgia for attempting to subvert the state’s 2020 presidential election, and is involved in a New York case that accuses him of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment to a porn actress.
