Attorney General Bridget Hill Joins Amicus Brief in Support of Trump's Supreme Court Immunity Case

Attorney General Bridget Hill Joins Amicus Brief in Support of Trump’s Supreme Court Immunity Case

Attorney General Bridget Hill of Wyoming has endorsed Donald Trump in his impending Supreme Court trial over his claims of immunity.

Attorney General Dave Yost of Ohio supported Trump’s stance on his claims of immunity on March 19 by submitting an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court. An amicus brief is a document from an expert offering analysis or support for a legal matter.

Attorney General Treg Taylor of Alaska and Hill both signed the brief as “additional counsel.”

According to the court filing, Hill, Yost, and Taylor declare their “support of petitioner,” former President Donald Trump. Regarding his argument, Trump argues that he is shielded from criminal indictments for trying to rig the 2020 election by presidential immunity. Trump has entered a “not guilty” plea to the felony accusations.

On February 28, the US Supreme Court decided to take up the former president’s claim of immunity. The first hearing is set for April 25.

According to Yost, the president has a significant amount of immunity under the U.S. Constitution, but it is not unrestricted. But according to Yost, “determining where presidential immunity ends and presidential accountability begins must start with the known unknowns.”

These variables include the president’s decisions and the environment in which they were made. The greatest parameters to consider when evaluating the activities of the head of state are standards rather than rules, the brief adds.

“Announcing a test for presidential immunity in this case’s posture might seem unusual,” Yost states. “After this case, the idea of pressing criminal charges against a current or former President will always be on the table. Announcing a test now, before all the facts are aired, not only aids the trial process, but may well ‘turn the national temperature down.”

Yost suggests in the brief that in order to more accurately assess presidential immunity, courts should use the following two-pronged test:

  • Examine the relationship between a purported criminal behavior and the president’s authority as outlined in Article II of the Constitution.
  • Determine if the president’s actions were justified given the urgency of the situation. Yost and his other attorneys general contend that conditions warrant a higher level of presidential immunity during periods of extreme urgency, such as war.

The Ohio AG said in the brief that he thinks we are living in historically unusual times. Yost contends that threats of presidential prosecution and impeachment have become more frequent during and during the Trump administration.

“A line of normal behavior has been crossed — the special counsel actually boasts in his own brief that a president has never before been criminally prosecuted,” Yost stated in a news release.