Special Counsel Urges Supreme Court to Reject Trump’s Immunity Claim

Washington, D.C. — In a pivotal legal battle, Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a compelling brief urging the Supreme Court to reject former President Donald Trump’s audacious claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.

The case centers on Trump’s alleged role in subverting the results of the 2020 presidential election and mishandling classified documents.


Trump’s legal team contends that granting immunity is essential to preserve the presidency’s independence. However, Smith’s 66-page filing dismantles this argument.

He asserts that no constitutional basis supports such sweeping immunity. “The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President,” Smith emphasizes. “All Presidents, from the Founding to the modern era, have known that after leaving office, they faced potential criminal liability for official acts.”

Smith invokes history to refute Trump’s claims. “President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal,” he points out, “demonstrates that no one is above the law.”

The Constitution doesn’t grant a president a role in certifying their successor’s election. Trump’s efforts, Smith argues, were part of a “private scheme with private actors” to maintain power through fraud.

The filing also addresses Trump’s gag order appeal. Smith contends that Trump’s actions were far removed from “official acts” and that criminal law applies to a president even after leaving office.

The court’s decision, expected by July, could significantly impact not only the election subversion case but also other pending criminal charges against Trump.

On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments. Trump’s lawyers argue that subjecting a president to criminal prosecution would “incapacitate every future president.” However, Smith’s response underscores a fundamental principle: “No person is above the law.”

Stay tuned for further developments.