Trump's Lawyers Flunk Constitutional Law, Part Infinity
Wayne Unger, Quinnipiac University
Former President Donald Trump claims that the president of the United States is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution.
On March 19, 2024, Trump filed his brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith for Trump’s alleged criminal attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump argued in the brief that the Supreme Court must dismiss the criminal indictment against him because his alleged conduct constituted official acts by a president and that presidents must be afforded absolute immunity for their official acts.
To support his contention, Trump cites Supreme Court cases, the Federalist Papers, and other writings from legal scholars. Trump argues that these documents show presidents hold absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.
But as a constitutional law scholar, I know that those writings, in fact, say the opposite. They say U.S. presidents are not absolutely immune from criminal prosecution.
If a student of mine had submitted a brief making the arguments that Trump and his lawyers assert in their Supreme Court filing, I would have given them an F.