Jack Smith's latest Supreme Court filing against Trump immunity claim is a civics lesson for us all

If you are among the 1 in 5 Americans who, according to a recent poll, are willing to buy the argument that a former president is above the law, we urge you to read the latest filing from Special Counsel Jack Smith on the issue as it relates to Donald Trump.

Most Americans, 62% as the Marquette University Law School poll from February found, say a president should not be immune from criminal prosecution once they are no longer in office. Only 20%, the poll found, believe the opposite. The percentage increased to 28% when Trump’s name was substituted for the words “a former president” in the poll’s question.

For those people, and for the remaining percentage who answered “don’t know,” — well, Smith’s Monday night filing to the Supreme Court is an essential read. It’s also worth a read by the 62% who already agree with the principle, essential to a functioning democracy, that no one is above the law.

Consider it an important civics lesson, even for non-lawyers wading through the filing’s legal language explaining point-by-point why Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 election to stay in power.

"(T)he specific form of criminal conduct charged here ... does not justify any form of immunity,” the brief reads. Later, it continues: “The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts.” President Richard M. Nixon is cited as an example: Why else would Nixon accept a pardon from Gerald Ford, except out of fear of being prosecuted for Watergate?

Why also, it’s easy to ask, would Trump bother to claim, as he first tweeted in 2018, that he had “the ABSOLUTE right” to pardon himself for any crimes if re-elected?

The court is scheduled to hear arguments in the matter on April 25.

Also on Monday, a group of retired top military leaders filed their own brief strongly urging the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s immunity argument, calling it a matter of national security.

“The notion of such immunity ... threatens to jeopardize our nation’s security and international leadership,” their brief, also worth reading, states. “Particularly in times like the present, when anti-democratic, authoritarian regimes are on the rise worldwide, such a threat is intolerable and dangerous.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 3-0 against Trump’s claim on Feb. 6, prompting Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The case was originally scheduled to go to trial on March 4.

America has no divine right of kings, or presidents. The sooner the Supreme Court makes that clear, in no uncertain terms, the better for the nation.

The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.