By
Former military leaders are sounding the alarm ahead of Donald Trump’s Supreme Court immunity hearing later this month. Retired four-star admirals and generals, along with former secretaries of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, want to warn the justices about the dangers of his presidential immunity claim.
Unless Trump’s theory is rejected, they wrote in an amicus brief, “we risk jeopardizing America’s standing as a guardian of democracy in the world and further feeding the spread of authoritarianism, thereby threatening the national security of the United States and democracies around the world.”
Oral argument in Washington is set for April 25. Meanwhile, Trump’s federal election interference case is on hold pending the high court’s ruling. Even if the justices rule against the former president, depending on when and how they rule exactly, their decision to take up the appeal and set it for a hearing in late April could effectively immunize him. That’s because Trump could win the presidential election in November before even standing trial and use his reacquired presidential power to crush the case.
Memorably, at the federal appeals court argument earlier this year, a judge raised the prospect that, if presidents are immune from prosecution as Trump claims, then they could order the military to murder their political rivals.
Memorably, at the federal appeals court argument earlier this year, a judge raised the prospect that, if presidents are immune from prosecution as Trump claims, then they could order the military to murder their political rivals. The presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s lawyer didn’t have a good answer to that nightmare scenario under his immunity theory.
On that note, in their amicus brief filed Monday, the retired military leaders wrote that Trump’s theory “has the potential to severely undermine the Commander-in-Chief’s legal and moral authority to lead the military forces, as it would signal that they but not he must obey the rule of law.”
The filing comes alongside several other amicus briefs supporting special counsel Jack Smith’s position. It’s hard to think that a majority of the Supreme Court would endorse a view that grants presidents the authority to order a rival’s murder without criminal consequence. But this latest filing highlights the broader dangers at stake to the military and the nation itself.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.