{"id":2211976,"date":"2024-04-03T06:25:03","date_gmt":"2024-04-03T10:25:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-mulling-briefs-from-trump-allies-and-ex-officials-in-immunity-bid\/"},"modified":"2024-04-03T06:25:27","modified_gmt":"2024-04-03T10:25:27","slug":"supreme-court-mulling-briefs-from-trump-allies-and-ex-officials-in-immunity-bid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-mulling-briefs-from-trump-allies-and-ex-officials-in-immunity-bid\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court reviewing requests for immunity from Trump allies and former officials in pending cases"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">30<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fsupreme-court-mulling-briefs-from-trump-allies-and-ex-officials-in-immunity-bid%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2211976&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The Supreme Court is \u200dset to evaluate Trump&#8217;s plea for presidential immunity from prosecution. Various amicus briefs\u2063 support Trump&#8217;s\u200b stance, questioning the timing and motives behind the indictment. \u200bContrasting viewpoints within\u200b the \u200cbriefs delve into the implications of the immunity ruling on presidential powers \u2064and the justice system&#8217;s integrity. The case raises critical questions about \u200cthe balance of power, partisan\u200c prosecution\u2063 risks, and legal precedents.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Supreme Court<\/a> will soon weigh <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/donald-trump\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Donald Trump<\/a>\u2018s claim that presidential immunity should shield him from prosecution \u2014 prompting former generals, officials, and allied legal minds to chime in on the former president\u2019s argument.<\/p>\n<p>So far, 18 groups have submitted amicus briefs or \u201cfriend of the court\u201d filings related to the immunity case that express a range of ideas surrounding Trump\u2019s arguments that he enjoys \u201cabsolute immunity\u201d from criminal prosecution for his official acts. Lower courts thus far have denied Trump\u2019s effort to avoid trial over a four-count indictment by special counsel <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/jack-smith\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Jack Smith<\/a> accusing the former president of attempting to upend the results of the 2020 election.<\/p>\n<figure><figcaption>In this June 24, 2019, photo, the empty courtroom is seen at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. (AP Photo\/J. Scott Applewhite)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/docket\/docketfiles\/html\/public\/23-939.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"Trump v. United States\">Trump v. United States<\/a><\/em>, which asks the justices to determine: \u201cWhether 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The high court is fielding hundreds of pages of filings on the docket. One of the broadest amicus briefs in support of Trump was filed on March 19 by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, leading 18 states in a filing that suggested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred when it ruled that the risk of partisan prosecution is \u201cslight,\u201d according to the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/23\/23-939\/303396\/20240319140344791_2024.03.19%20AL%20Amicus%20Br%20ISO%20Trump%20FINAL.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"38-page brief\">38-page brief<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAfter waiting 30 months to indict President Trump, the Special Counsel has demanded extreme expedition from every court at every stage of the case. His only stated reason, the \u2018public interest,\u2019 is so thin it\u2019s almost transparent,\u201d Marshall wrote, adding that the timing of the prosecution was designed to inflict \u201cmaximum damage\u201d on President <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/joe-biden\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"Joe Biden\">Joe Biden<\/a>\u2018s political opponent.<\/p>\n<p>Marshall indicated that the timing of the indictment brought against Trump \u201cshows that the risk of partisan prosecutions is anything but \u2018slight.&#8217;\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Another brief by the Kansas Republican Party and 17 other states addressed the immunity matter head-on, arguing that a finding against Trump\u2019s request would \u201cseverely weaken\u201d the effectiveness of the president\u2019s abilities along with his or her administration.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cFurther, such a finding would render the legal principles behind the doctrine of absolute immunity meaningless, affecting elected Democrat and Republican office holders alike,\u201d according to the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/23\/23-939\/303387\/20240319134238894_23-939%20Amicus%20BOM%20Kansas%20Republican%20Party%20et%20al%20PDFA.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"19-page brief\">19-page brief<\/a> from the Kansas GOP.<\/p>\n<p>Other amici in the case included a collaboration between Citizens United, the nonprofit organization behind the high court\u2019s 2010 decision that allowed corporations to spend unlimited funds on political donations, and two former U.S. attorneys general.<\/p>\n<p>Edwin Meese III and Michael B. Mukasey, attorneys general under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively, teamed up with Citizens United to attack the legitimacy of the team of federal prosecutors targeting Trump, while largely avoiding the immunity question at hand.<\/p>\n<p>The group wrote that Smith \u201cwields tremendous power, effectively answerable to no one, by design,\u201d arguing his assignment to the case was unconstitutional without the Senate\u2019s confirmation. They argue that Attorney General Merrick Garland erred with Smith\u2019s appointment and that he should have followed the same procedure used in a separate Hunter Biden investigation with the appointment of Senate-confirmed federal prosecutor U.S. Attorney <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/david-weiss\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"David Weiss\">David Weiss<\/a> of Delaware.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cGarland cited as statutory authority for this appointment 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 509, 510, 515, and 533. But none of those statutes, nor any other statutory or constitutional provision, remotely authorized the appointment\u201d of Smith, Meese and others wrote, referring to the special counsel as merely a \u201cprivate citizen.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Trump \u201cshould not need to assert any defense\u2014including immunity\u2014against a private citizen.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But not every amicus brief was supportive of Trump\u2019s side.<\/p>\n<p>Three retired officials, including Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who once was Trump\u2019s acting national security adviser, former Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie, and retired Lieutenant General William Gerald \u201cJerry\u201d Boykin, took issue with a claim Trump attorney D. John Sauer made about the scope of immunity Trump claims he possesses.<\/p>\n<p>Under questioning, Sauer told the appeals court on Jan. 9 that a president who ordered the military to assassinate a political rival or sold pardons to criminals could be criminally prosecuted only if he is first impeached and convicted by Congress.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cCould a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival?\u201d Circuit Judge Florence Pan, a Biden nominee, posed hypothetically. \u201cThat is an official act, an order to SEAL Team Six.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cMy answer is yes,\u201d Sauer said, but he contended \u201cthere is a political process that would have to occur,\u201d referring to impeachment.<\/p>\n<p>While the former military officials did not broach the matter of presidential immunity, they emphatically wrote that a \u201cPresident cannot order the military to assassinate a political rival and have that order carried out,\u201d <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/23\/23-939\/303384\/20240319133828340_AFPI%20Amici%20Brief%203.19.24.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"according\">according<\/a> to their 14-page brief, marking the first time former military officials have had to make such a claim in a legal brief.<\/p>\n<p>The array of briefs already filed on the docket follows Smith\u2019s Feb. 14 response to the Supreme Court asking the justices not to take up the case, a request the high court ultimately denied on Feb. 28 when it agreed to consider the appeal.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title><strong>CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe thorough opinions of the courts below considering and unanimously rejecting his arguments \u2014 and applicant\u2019s failure to point to any Founding Era suggestion of such absolute immunity, any former President making such a claim, or even any scholarly commentary positing such immunity \u2014 underscore how remote the possibility is that this Court will agree with his unprecedented legal position,\u201d Smith wrote in his <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/23\/23-939\/300627\/20240214180323991_23A745_Trump%20v.%20United%20States_Gov.%20stay%20resp_FINAL.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"39-page brief\">39-page brief<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Smith and other amici in opposition to Trump\u2019s presidential immunity claims have until Monday to file a response on the high court\u2019s docket, and any reply briefs can be made on or before April 15.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court will consider Donald Trump&#8217;s argument for presidential immunity. Former officials and legal experts have submitted 18 amicus briefs backing Trump&#8217;s stance<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2211977,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/wex-s3.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/AP24088684891425-1-1024x683.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[538],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2211976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-washington-examiner"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/wex-s3.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/AP24088684891425-1-1024x683.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2211976","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2633"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2211976"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2211976\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2211977"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2211976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2211976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2211976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}