Former President Donald Trump has submitted a Supreme Court brief, urging the justices to accept his view of immunity against special counsel Jack Smith's election subversion charges. Trump warned that future presidents could be susceptible to blackmail and extortion if his maximalist theory of presidential immunity was not upheld. However, he also proposed an alternative route that would delay the trial until after the 2024 election, allowing him to achieve his political goal.

In the brief, Trump referenced statements made by Justice Brett Kavanaugh before his nomination to the Supreme Court, seemingly appealing to Kavanaugh's past experiences. Trump's arguments come as the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the issue, with oral arguments scheduled for April 25.

If the justices are unwilling to grant Trump full immunity from Smith's prosecution, he suggests sending the case back to lower courts for further proceedings, which would potentially postpone the trial for several months. This alternative route could provide an "off-ramp" for the conservative majority on the court, restricting the special counsel's actions without adopting a blanket view of immunity for former presidents.

Trump's lawyers stated in the brief that this case presents uncharted territory in terms of presidential immunity, with significant implications for future presidents. They argued that if immunity is not recognized, every future president would face the prospect of potential criminal prosecution after leaving office for making politically controversial decisions. They emphasized that this could irreparably damage the presidency and the republic itself.

Trump also reiterated arguments that the Supreme Court had not focused on in this case, claiming that he could only face criminal prosecution if he was impeached and convicted by Congress for the same conduct. Despite not being asked to address this issue in their briefings, Trump's lawyers insisted that Kavanaugh's statements on criminal investigations against sitting presidents apply to former occupants of the White House as well.

The former president's brief cited Kavanaugh's remarks from a 2009 law review article, in which Kavanaugh suggested that a president concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation would likely perform worse in their duties. Trump's lawyers contended that this conclusion applies to former presidents as well, especially to a former president who is a leading candidate to replace the current incumbent prosecuting him.

Trump's legal arguments in the brief echo his previous assertions of far-reaching claims of presidential immunity, which lower courts have already rejected. By framing the issue as one that will impact not only his own legal exposure but that of all future presidents, Trump hopes to sway the Supreme Court in his favor.

The court now faces the challenge of delving into an unexplored area of the law with far-reaching implications and the added pressure of time constraints. By agreeing to hear the case, the justices have complicated efforts to commence a trial before the end of the year.

As the oral arguments date approaches, the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity will shape the legal landscape for future presidents and their potential criminal prosecution after leaving office. All eyes are now on the court as it navigates this significant and contentious issue.