- Nineteen former military officials opposed Trump's immunity bid in a Supreme Court amicus brief.
- Trump, facing felony charges, claims 'absolute immunity' from prosecution of events from his presidency.
- The brief argues immunity could hurt public trust, security, and the rule of law.
Nineteen former military officials argue in a US Supreme Court amicus brief that offering legal immunity to former President Donald Trump could cause irreparable damage.
"The rule of law is critical to the military's mission and to the people's trust in the armed forces," the former military leaders, which included nine generals, six admirals, and four service secretaries, wrote in a brief filed April 8.
Not only does the former president's "approach threaten to inject chaos into military operations, it also threatens to damage— potentially irreparably — the public's trust in the military and the willingness of recruits to join the armed forces," they said.
Trump has claimed that while in office, the president has "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution. Trump is facing felony federal charges stemming from allegations of attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Oral arguments are expected to begin on April 25.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to the allegations against him while his defense has argued that he is immune from prosecution as the Department of Justice and special counsel Jack Smith push the case forward. Smith has asked the Supreme Court to reject Trump's immunity claims.
Former military members detailed how granting Trump, the former commander-in-chief of the armed forces, immunity from felony charges would negatively impact the rule of law, civilian-military relations, and the peaceful transition of power.
The brief said that the provision of immunity for alleged unlawful actions by the president would result in a lack of accountability that would undermine the expectation that members of the US military "to abide by the orders of superior officers" but "disobey any such orders that are unlawful," responsibilities that American service members must commit to when they serve.
If Trump were granted immunity, the former military leaders said, this would also negate individual rights and the role of civilians within military.
"Allowing the Commander-in-Chief to weaponize the powers of the US military to criminal ends with impunity would also confront the President's civilian appointees and military officers with an impossible choice: whether to obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief or the laws of the United States," the brief said.
Former military officials also argued that presidential immunity would threaten national security as the lack of accountability would threaten democracy and influence how other nations perceive the US at a time when authoritarian powers are rising in influence.
Others beyond those represented in the brief agreed. "The president doesn't have immunity on these types of issues," Trump's former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told CNN's Katie Hunt in response to the brief and Trump's immunity plea. "It's just absurd."
