According to recent reports, former President Donald Trump recently filed a brief in support of his argument that presidents should have immunity to criminal prosecution surrounding conduct that involves official acts during his term in the White House.
In August of last year, the GOP frontrunner was charged in Washington, D.C. in an indictment for challenging the results of the 2020 election and allegedly interfering with the Constitutional protocol for the transfer of power to Joe Biden.
“Former President Trump moved to dismiss the indictment and the district court denied his motion. Today, we affirm the denial. For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined last month.
However, Trump filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that no current or former President in the country’s history has ever faced criminal charges for official acts. “The President cannot function, and the Presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the President faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office,” the brief claimed. It further argued that a commander-in-chief’s “personal vulnerability,” to criminal prosecution would impact his decisions as president.
Trump’s argument then points out that any president who doesn’t receive said immunity is liable to face “de facto” blackmail and open him up to “post-office trauma” as political adversaries could seek to punish them. The brief ultimately states that this would undermine the authority of the executive branch.
“A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents. The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial Presidential decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency,” the brief contended.
The filing continues, citing the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, where the nation’s highest court ruled that the official acts of a president “can never be examinable by the courts.” The brief added, “Continuing Marbury’s tradition, this Court held in 1982 that the courts cannot hold a former President personally liable ‘for acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.’”
Trump’s brief further emphasizes the danger this criminal prosecution poses, citing it as an existential threat to the “bedrock of our Republic.” The filing with the Supreme Court stated, “The Court should restore the tradition from Marbury to Fitzgerald—unbroken until last year— and neutralize one of the greatest threats to the President’s separate power, a bedrock of our Republic, in our Nation’s history. The Court should uphold the President’s immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.”
The brief ultimately noted the importance of presidential immunity, stating, “Thus, the consequences of this Court’s holding on Presidential immunity are not confined to President Trump. They will affect the Presidency itself for the rest of our Nation’s history.”
"*" indicates required fields