Jack Smith tells Supreme Court to reject Trump’s motion for presidential immunity in J6 case

Smith claimed that Trump's assertion that the president should be above the law contradicts the "bedrock principle of our constitutional order."

"No presidential power at issue in this case," Smith argued in a 66-page filing, "entitles the President to claim immunity from the general federal criminal prohibitions supporting the charges: fraud against the United States, obstruction of official proceedings, and denial of the right to vote."

He added that a president's "constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general right to violate them."

"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 continued, citing the case of Richard Nixon.

He pointed out that in the aftermath of Watergate, Nixon accepted a pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford, and that this "implied his and President Ford's recognition that a former President was subject to prosecution."

Smith contended that since that incident, the Department of Justice, special counsels, and presidents have all "held the view that a former President may face criminal prosecution."

"A bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law— including the President," he warned. "Nothing in constitutional text, history, precedent, or policy considerations supports the absolute immunity that [Trump] seeks."

Trump's immunity claim was initially struck down by the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in February, however the former president filed an emergency request to the Supreme Court, who agreed to hear his case.

"Without Presidential Immunity, a President will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America," Trump argued. "Presidents will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office. This could actually lead to the extortion and blackmail of a President."

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case beginning the week of April 22.