The prosecution urges the Supreme Court to dismiss Trump's election subversion immunity claims.

Washington — On Monday night, special counsel Jack Smith's team requested the Supreme Court to reject former President Donald Trump's assertion that he is immune from prosecution in a lawsuit charging him with attempting to overthrow the 2020 presidential election.  

Two weeks before the justices decide whether an ex-president is immune from criminal charges for White House acts, prosecutors submitted their brief. They wrote that “A President’s alleged criminal scheme to use his official powers to overturn the presidential election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power frustrates core constitutional provisions that protect democracy.”  

Trump may face trial this year in a four-count indictment accusing him of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after losing the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden. The April 25 arguments are likely to establish this.  

Trump claims prior presidents have immunity for official activities. Tanya Chutkan, the judge, and a three-judge federal appeal court in Washington strongly rejected that notion.  

The Supreme Court then raised the question of whether Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, may face trial in one of four criminal prosecutions before November's election. Smith's team repeated several lower court arguments in its recent brief, stressing that “federal criminal law applies to the president.”  

The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts,” Smith's team said.  

Even if the Supreme Court recognized some immunity for a president's official acts, prosecutors said the prosecution should proceed because much of the charge centers on Trump's private conduct. Smith's lawyers argued the court may narrowly rule that Trump was not entitled to immunity in this case without reaching a broader finding that would apply to other cases.  

“A holding that petitioner has no immunity from the alleged crimes would suffice to resolve this case, leaving potentially more difficult questions on different facts for decision if they are ever presented,” they added.  

stay turned for development