Several officials who worked under Republican presidents are arguing that granting Donald Trump immunity in his federal election subversion case would “encourage future Presidents who lose re-election to engage in criminal conduct.”
That argument was made in an amicus brief filed in support of the Justice Department’s opposition to the former president’s immunity claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit accepted the brief Tuesday.
Among the signers are officials who worked in five GOP administrations, as well as former Republican elected officials and constitutional scholars. They include retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig; former Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Va.; former Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer, who served under President George H.W. Bush; and Paul Rosenzweig, a Department of Homeland Security official under President George W. Bush. (For the full list of names, go here.)
In the brief, they contend that the Constitution does not support Trump’s “dangerous argument for criminal immunity.” If he successfully argues that his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election were within the scope of his official duties as president, it could open the floodgates for future presidents, they say.
“If that conduct qualified for absolute immunity, this would improperly unleash a future President to disregard current criminal statutes and deploy the military in efforts to alter the results of a presidential election,” they wrote, adding: “These terrifying possibilities are real, not remote.”
Trump has been pushing a broad “presidential immunity” defense in his election case in Washington. On Friday, the Supreme Court declined special counsel Jack Smith’s request for the justices to step in early and consider the immunity claim, and Trump’s lawyers are now appealing U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s rejection of the immunity defense.
In the amicus brief, the former GOP officials argue that sitting presidents have other means to challenge election results that do not include absolute immunity.
In the amicus brief, the former GOP officials argue that sitting presidents have other means to challenge election results that do not include absolute immunity. They also warned of the stark consequences that could result from accepting Trump’s argument.
“If this Court adopts former President Trump’s view of absolute immunity, future first-term Presidents would be encouraged repeatedly to engage in despotic criminal conduct after election day to remain in power illegitimately,” they wrote.