A group of highly respected retired four-star generals and admirals have stepped into the legal fray, slamming Donald Trump’s assertion of absolute “presidential immunity” in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. In no uncertain terms, they argue that Trump’s claims pose a direct threat to the foundational principles of democracy and could dangerously upset the delicate balance of power between the executive and legislative branches outlined in the Constitution.
The 38-page amicus brief, authored by 19 distinguished military figures, including decorated retired admirals, generals, and secretaries from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, respectively, calls for caution in considering Trump’s arguments. The Supreme Court is set to hear Trump’s challenge to immunity against prosecution for his alleged role in subverting the 2020 election results on April 25, and the military officials emphasize the gravity of the issue at hand.
“Petitioner’s theory of presidential immunity threatens to subvert the careful balance between the executive and legislative branches struck in the Constitution. For example, if emboldened by absolute immunity, the President might unsuccessfully seek authorization from Congress to undertake a certain action and then attempt to have the military carry out that action even though Congress rejected it. Moreover, our Constitution directs the people’s elected representatives in Congress to enact criminal laws that the executive is tasked with enforcing; allowing the President to violate those laws with impunity fundamentally distorts this constitutional allocation of powers,” they wrote.
Moreover, they argue that accepting Trump’s version of immunity would erode the fundamental principle of civilian control over the military and undermine the rule of law. They stress the importance of maintaining trust in civil-military relations and warn against granting the president unchecked authority to issue unlawful orders.
Don't Miss
“The Constitution subjects the armed forces of the United States to civilian control and the rule of law. These limits on the military are bedrock features of our democracy and are deeply rooted in our nation’s history. From the Founding to the present day, a steadfast commitment to these principles has successfully guided us through two world wars and numerous other conflicts; provided the stability needed for our democratic republic to flourish; and ensured that the military has the capacity to defend our nation by being trained and ready to fight and win its wars. Petitioner’s theory of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is an assault on these foundational commitments.”
In scathing criticism, the military officials dismiss Trump’s immunity claims as “profoundly ahistorical,” pointing out that no previous president has enjoyed absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. They refute Trump’s assertion that immunity is necessary for the president to function effectively, stating that it would instead undermine the legal and moral authority of the commander-in-chief.
The military’s intervention underscores the broader implications of Trump’s legal battle, emphasizing the potential harm to national security and democratic norms. As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in on this pivotal issue, the voices of these respected military leaders add weight to the arguments against Trump’s immunity claims.
As The Daily Boulder previously reported, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Trump’s stark bid for “absolute immunity” as president already. The judges resoundingly rejected his claims that under certain circumstances, a former president could even get away with murdering his political rivals.
In a separate amicus brief filed Monday, a group of former government officials and constitutional lawyers shared similar sentiments and legal arguments about Trump’s claim to immunity or lack thereof.
Granting Trump the immunity he seeks “would create a perverse incentive for all future holders of the office of the presidency,” they wrote. The experts also note that it was determined by a lower court that many of the acts Trump undertook on Jan. 6 were considered private, not official.
