In a new Supreme Court brief filed on Tuesday, former President Donald Trump advocated for broad presidential immunity against the charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith regarding election subversion. Trump warned that future presidents could face "blackmail and extortion while in office" if the court did not accept his view of immunity.

While pushing for a maximalist theory of presidential immunity, Trump also presented an alternative route to the justices that would delay the trial until after the November election. His brief referenced statements made by Justice Brett Kavanaugh prior to his nomination, seemingly appealing to the justice's past experience.

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up the issue of presidential immunity, with oral arguments scheduled for April 25. Trump urged the justices to either grant him full immunity or send the case back to lower courts for further proceedings, which would considerably prolong the trial. This alternative route, if pursued, could hinder the special counsel without requiring a blanket view of immunity for former presidents.

Trump's legal team argued that no court had yet addressed the application of immunity to the specific facts of this case. They added that any doctrine of immunity set out by the Supreme Court might necessitate a thorough examination of the charged conduct and the surrounding circumstances.

Aside from delving into uncharted legal territory, the Supreme Court faces pressure to keep an eye on the clock due to their decision to hear the case. Agreeing to take it up has complicated efforts to start a trial before the year ends.

In his latest brief, Trump reaffirmed his far-reaching claims of presidential immunity, which lower courts had previously rejected. He framed the issue not just in terms of his own legal exposure but also for the future presidents. The former president's attorneys stressed that failure to recognize immunity would expose every future president to the possibility of criminal prosecution for politically controversial decisions made while in office. They argued that this would be detrimental to the presidency and the Republic as a whole.

Trump also advanced arguments regarding criminal prosecution that the Supreme Court had not explicitly asked the parties to address. He claimed that he could face criminal prosecution only if he was first impeached and convicted by Congress for the same conduct.

In support of his arguments, Trump's brief frequently cited statements made by Justice Brett Kavanaugh before his appointment to the Supreme Court. These statements, which focused on criminal investigations and prosecutions of sitting presidents, were now being applied by Trump's legal team to former occupants of the White House.

One such citation was from a 2009 law review article adapted from a speech Kavanaugh gave as a DC Circuit judge. Kavanaugh had stated that "a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President." Trump's lawyers argued that this conclusion also applies if the criminal investigation is pending until a president leaves office.

Additionally, Trump's brief referenced a 1998 Georgetown Law article written by Kavanaugh, who had worked on the independent counsel investigation into former President Bill Clinton. In the article, Kavanaugh asserted that the prosecution or non-prosecution of a president is inevitably a political act.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Trump emphasized that the quoted statements from Kavanaugh applied to former presidents and particularly to a former president who is the leading candidate to replace the incumbent prosecuting him.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications not only for Trump but for future presidents as well. The Supreme Court must now carefully consider the arguments presented and decide on the question of presidential immunity.