Former President Donald Trump motioned to dismiss the charges against him Thursday in an election conspiracy case in Washington, claiming that his actions were within the scope of his office while urging that he is “absolutely immune from prosecution.”
Trump faces a four-count indictment in the case, brought by special counsel Jack Smith, which accuses him of interfering with the peaceful transfer of power in the wake of the 2020 presidential election and inciting a violent insurrection at the Capitol. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges. His lawyers argued on Thursday that the charged conduct fell within his official responsibilities as president.
“Breaking 234 years of precedent, the incumbent administration has charged President Trump for acts that lie not just within the ‘outer perimeter,’ but at the heart of his official responsibilities as President,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in the court filing. “In doing so, the prosecution does not, and cannot, argue that President Trump’s efforts to ensure election integrity, and to advocate for the same, were outside the scope of his duties.”
In the filing to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, Trump’s lawyers go on to argue that the government’s claims hinge upon the idea that Trump had “impure” motives because he knew that the stolen election narrative was untrue, but that “the President’s motivations are not for the prosecution or this Court to decide.”
Moreso, the lawyers claim that because the Senate acquitted Trump in the impeachment trial related to similar conduct, he “thus remains immune from prosecution,” arguing that the special counsel cannot “second-guess the judgment of the duly elected United States Senate.” They also highlighted Supreme Court precedent that argues that immunity is “most appropriate” for officials who must take “bold and unhesitating action,” suggesting that Trump did so.
The move, drawing on an expansive view of presidential authority that is far from universally agreed upon, is the latest attempt by Trump’s team to counteract his legal troubles as he faces charges in four criminal cases and on other civil matters. Earlier this week, Trump’s lawyers reportedly motioned to dismiss charges related to hush money payments in a New York case, where they argued that the indictment was intended to interfere with the presidential election. His lawyers also requested this week that his federal trial in Florida relating to the mishandling of classified documents be delayed until after the presidential election.
Chutkan herself has already denied a claim of executive privilege from Trump, ruling in November 2021 against an effort by Trump and his defense team to obtain an injunction to stop the National Archives from releasing records – with the approval of the Biden White House – that were sought by a House select committee.
The most memorable and oft-quoted line of her opinion suggested she might take a dim view of Trump’s sweeping immunity claim.
“Presidents are not kings, and the Plaintiff is not President,” she wrote.
The case seems likely to end up before the Supreme Court, which has a mixed track record on the issue. Judges and justices have weighed in over the years on executive immunity as it relates to civil matters, with the justices concluding that the commander in chief has vast protection from liability for conduct even tangentially related to official duties. But Richard Nixon’s resignation and Gerald Ford’s subsequent pardon of him sidestepped for decades the best test of the question of executive immunity in cases of criminal prosecution for a president.
A ruling on the subject from a high court composed of nine justices, three of whom Trump himself hand-picked, is certain to have broad consequences for the cases against Trump – a fact he has acknowledged and seemingly welcomed.
“The Supreme Court must intercede,” Trump posted to his Truth Social site in August after pleading not guilty in Washington.