WASHINGTON, D.C. – Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers on Monday petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to block a lower court’s ruling that the president is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes committed while in office.
In their 112-page filing, Trump’s lawyers highlight what special counsel Jack Smith previously said: asked for After the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected President Trump’s immunity request, the Supreme Court decided to take an “unusual departure from normal appellate procedures and address the extremely important and historic issue of presidential immunity.” This is because decisions are made in a super-accelerated manner.
The Supreme Court ultimately declined to take up the issue, but Smith took the issue to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mr. Trump’s lawyers argue that the court ruled with “unprecedented swiftness” to dismiss the claim.
Special Prosecutor Jack Smith (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The petition asks the Supreme Court to “stay judgment and allow President Trump’s immunity claims to be determined through the ordinary course of justice.”
Trump lawyers claim the three-judge panel’s ruling in the D.C. Circuit is a “stunning violation of precedent and historical norms” and has previously been charged with “official conduct.” He stressed that there is no former president and that he should not be indicted now. or in the future:
The following panel opinion, like the district court, concludes that there is no presidential immunity from prosecution for acts of official conduct. This is an astonishing violation of precedent and historical norms. In 234 years of American history, no president has ever been prosecuted for an act of official conduct. Nor should it be. Presidents must make “some of the most sensitive and far-reaching decisions entrusted to any official under our constitutional system. Their decisions are the most politically controversial and most public-facing of any official.” attention and political anger, making the president an easy target for politically motivated prosecutions. When presidential prosecutions are upheld, such prosecutions are likely to recur and become increasingly common. It will become commonplace and a chain of destructive accusations will begin.
They further argue that this precedent has a significant impact on the decision-making freedom of future presidents, and that the threat of potential prosecution will hinder their ability to function properly as commander in chief.
“This threat hangs like a millstone around the neck of every future president, distorting presidential decision-making, undermining presidential independence, and clouding the president’s ability to ‘fearlessly and impartially handle’ his duties.” it is written like this.
The application is US vs. Trump, And the United States Supreme Court has not yet assigned a document number.
