Special Counsel Jack Smith has submitted a brief to the Supreme Court arguing against former President Donald Trump’s claim of broad presidential immunity. Smith suggests that accepting Trump’s immunity arguments could transform the presidency into an authoritarian position by removing constraints on presidents obeying voters’ will.

Smith’s brief comes in response to a challenge brought by defendants charged with obstructing Congress’ work on January 6, 2021. The defendants argue that the Justice Department has misapplied the obstruction law against pro-Trump rioters. They contend that the law was intended for evidence tampering cases, not for general efforts to prevent Congress from meeting.

Smith argues that even if the justices agree with this challenge, the charges against Trump relying on the same law would still stand. This is because Trump’s efforts to use fraudulent electoral certifications at the Joint Session qualify as obstruction, even under a narrower interpretation of the law.

Smith’s brief emphasizes that no person, including the President, is above the law. He argues that the effective functioning of the Presidency does not require a former President to be immune from accountability for alleged violations of federal criminal law.