Attached and below is a copy of our Amici Curiae Brief filed on March 19, 2024 at SCOTUS in the Trump v. U.S. (presidential immunity) case.
JAG is both co-counsel and a party on the brief. Credit and thanks go to the principal author and “Attorney of Record” Bill Olson, and to the main amici, America’s Future, as well as to others that served as amici.
Please find the Summary of the Argument below from page 10-11 of the brief:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The question presented has never before been resolved because until 2023, no prosecutors have ever been so partisan and reckless as to bring charges against a President for actions taken during his Presidency. The Constitution implies that criminal charges can only follow House impeachment and Senate conviction. Presidential immunity does not put the President “above the law” any more than the “Speech and Debate” clause, which confers criminal immunity, puts Congress “above the law.” As Chief Justice Marshall made clear, a President is vested with discretion, and “is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience.” Failure to provide Presidential immunity will transfer electoral power from voters to lawyers, juries, and judges, gravely damaging public belief in the rule of law. Tyrants abuse their power to clear the field of political opponents, but this Court must not allow America to become that kind of nation.
The Special Counsel was appointed only after President Trump announced as a candidate for President against President Biden. The D.C. prosecution, brought more than two and one-half years after January 6, 2021, reveals the danger of empowering lawyers to take down opposition leaders. Novel and creative legal theories were developed by the Special Counsel designed to criminalize the right of the President to challenge whether elections are conducted properly and votes are counted accurately. Trump has been indicted for making phone calls, speeches, and Tweeting. Challenging an election is exactly what several of Trump’s predecessors have done since the nation’s Founding.
Vice President Pence’s Counsel gave legal advice that there was legal and historical support for the Vice President taking a “prominent” rule — perhaps a “decisive role in resolving objections” on January 6. Although Pence declined to take such a role, he described the election as having “significant allegations of voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside election law.” He believed Americans “have every right” to demand “a full investigation of electoral misconduct.” Nevertheless, President Trump has been indicted for exercising that right.
Comments