Retired American generals vehemently argue that Donald Trump cannot deploy SEAL Team 6 to eliminate a political rival. Gun groups express concerns that the United States is resembling Communist China. A convicted Jan. 6 rioter suggests that President Joe Biden might face legal consequences over the death of a jogger in Georgia.
These opinions were among the 18 different groups that submitted briefs to the Supreme Court recently, coinciding with Trump’s defense against federal prosecution for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election under false pretenses.
The case, brought forth by Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith, has now reached the nation’s highest judicial authority. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision will determine whether Trump faces trial. The timing of this decision may influence whether Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, faces trial before the November election.
Before oral arguments next month, the Supreme Court faces a flood of opinions on the central question of the case: whether a former president enjoys immunity for actions taken while in office.
The Supreme Court (Credits: 8 News Now)
The Daily Beast reviewed these legal arguments, spanning 599 pages, which range from reiterations of Trump’s claims to startling warnings. This case holds historical significance, potentially affecting the fate of the election and American democracy.
One notable brief comes from three former high-ranking military leaders: Retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Robert Wilkie, and retired Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin. They publicly addressed one of Trump’s extreme legal arguments: that his immunity from prosecution could extend to ordering the assassination of political opponents. They emphasized that such actions would be unlawful and that military officers would be justified in refusing such orders.
Most other groups, however, sided with Trump. Organizations like America’s Future and Gun Owners of America warned that Smith’s prosecution could lead the U.S. to resemble authoritarian regimes like China. They argued against Trump’s prosecution, citing what they considered sensible political speech and disputing the 2020 election results.
Trump (Credits: The New Yorker)
Another filing came from Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama electrical engineer and political financier, who warned that Trump’s supporters might not trust the legal system in selecting fair jurors. He criticized the prosecution’s choice of venue and implied partisan bias.
Treniss Evans, a Jan. 6 rioter, argued that if Trump faces trial, Biden could also be held accountable for unrelated events, citing a Georgia murder case involving an allegedly undocumented individual.
Various other groups, including the Christian Family Coalition Florida and Citizens United, presented arguments in favor of Trump, questioning the legitimacy of the prosecution and emphasizing the importance of free speech in political discourse.
In contrast, a consortium of 18 state attorneys general led by Alabama AG Steve Marshall pointed out the central role of Trump’s presidency in the unfolding events. They highlight that without his presidency, none of the current legal proceedings would have occurred.
