A group of former government officials and constitutional lawyers submitted a brief to the Supreme Court of the United States Monday, arguing against the idea that former presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution.
The brief responded to a case involving Donald Trump who claims he should be immune from prosecution by United States special counsel Jack Smith. The case is currently under review by the Supreme Court, with hearings set to start April 25.
The group behind the brief includes notable figures such as Fred Wertheimer of the Democracy 21 Education Fund, and Seth P. Waxman of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. Former Trump administration legal counsel Ty Cobb and George Conway were also listed.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
These "friends of the court" argued that the Constitution does not protect former presidents from criminal prosecution, even for actions taken while in office. They asserted that granting such immunity would undermine the principle that no person is above the law, a fundamental tenet of American democracy.
ALSO READ: No, Donald Trump, fraud is not protected by the First Amendment
"Defendant’s claimed immunity finds no support in the Constitution’s text or historical practice. Nor can it be remotely squared with separation-of-powers principles made explicit in the Executive Vesting Clause and inherent in the structure of the Constitution; to the contrary, it subverts them," the filing said.
The brief meticulously outlined the legal and constitutional bases for their argument. It emphasized that the Constitution's text, history, and the principle of separation of powers do not support the notion of immunity for former presidents. Moreover, it argued that allowing such immunity would severely limit the executive branch's ability to enforce the law and would be contrary to the public interest.
Cobb and Conway have joined forces before in support of Smith's prosecution of Trump.
