Big Win for Trump in Immunity Case at Supreme Court

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against President Donald Trump for federal election interference will now go to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the Justices have agreed to hear the President’s immunity case. Oral arguments will begin in late April, and the Justices will likely rule in June – just in time for the 2024 presidential election against President Joe Biden.

Fox News reports on Trump’s request for presidential immunity:

The request states that the president’s “political opponents will seek to influence and control his or her decisions via effective extortion or blackmail with the threat, explicit or implicit, of indictment by a future, hostile Administration, for acts that do not warrant any such prosecution.”

“This threat will hang like a millstone around every future President’s neck, distorting Presidential decision-making, undermining the President’s independence, and clouding the President’s ability ‘to deal fearlessly and impartially with’ the duties of his office.’”

Trump’s lawyers added, “Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the Presidency as we know it will cease to exist.”

The Biden Administration shouldn’t be thrilled with Special Counsel Smith’s arguments either. Based on what Smith is arguing and what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit asserted, President Biden could be liable for criminal prosecution as soon as a new President is sworn in – which is just absurd.

I want to focus briefly on how the Supreme Court agreed to take the case – granting certiorari (when a higher court reviews a lower court’s decision). It will now be converted into oral arguments with a full briefing. Because the filed brief was so significant, the Court had to decide if it wanted to take it up as a writ of certiorari. This likely explains why the Court took so long to agree to take the case.

In Trump’s appeal, a petition for certiorari was not initially filed – all that had been filed was a motion for stay. Instead, the Court, on its own, converted it into a certiorari petition, and the Justices wrote one question that they wanted answered. This happens at the Supreme Court but is very unusual.

Now the lawyers must answer the Justices’ question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?”

So what are “official acts”? The Constitution requires that the President faithfully executes the laws of the United States. I would argue that Trump’s actions to verify the 2020 presidential election results fall under his duties as President. Put aside the fact of whether election irregularity actually happened; Trump truly believed it and investigated the matter.

Should President Bush be prosecuted for not finding weapons of mass destruction? Should President Obama face the possibility of jail for any controversial decisions he made? Where does this insanity end?

My dad, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, represented Trump in his personal capacity as part of the President’s legal team during his impeachment trial at the Supreme Court. He argued for presidential immunity for many of the same reasons cited by Trump’s lawyers. He also explained how the Founding Fathers didn’t want local magistrates going after the President.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo joined the broadcast to explain the absurdity of removing presidential immunity:

Every senior official and President and their national security advisers and the White House team around them – it would shape everything. It would create a monkey wrench in the system of staggering proportions because everyone would realize that the actions that they were taking – and some of the most difficult complex legal issues . . . [and] constitutional issues –every one of those was subject to challenge. And the moment that they walked out the door at noon on January 20, when their term of office was over, they [would be] subject to criminal prosecution. It would create a trainwreck for decision-making for every Administration.

I hope the Supreme Court makes the right decision and upholds President Trump’s appeal for presidential immunity. Removing that protection from the presidency would weaken the Executive branch for years to come.

President Biden should call Attorney General Merrick Garland and tell him to drop this indictment because it could very well affect the sitting President one day.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included a full analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear President Trump’s appeal for presidential immunity. We also discussed the news of President Trump being removed from the Illinois primary ballot and our ongoing Supreme Court case to defend voting rights.

Watch the full broadcast below: