Jack Smith, the special counsel tasked with prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump for allegedly scheming to overturn the 2020 election results, has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss Mr. Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution. In a submission made on Monday, Smith argued that "The president’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general right to violate them."

This submission serves as Smith's primary argument in the upcoming case scheduled for April 25. He emphasized the significance of the case, highlighting its uniqueness: "The absence of any prosecutions of former presidents until this case does not reflect the understanding that presidents are immune from criminal liability," Smith wrote. "It instead underscores the unprecedented nature of petitioner’s alleged conduct."

He implored the justices to maintain focus on the fundamental legal principles at hand. "A bedrock principle of our constitutional order," he penned, "is that no person is above the law — including the president." He further asserted, "The Constitution does not grant a president the authority to engage in conspiracy to defraud the United States in the certification of presidential-election results, obstruct proceedings for such certification, or undermine the impact of voters' ballots."

While Mr. Smith urged the court to expedite proceedings, he refrained from directly addressing the pending election.

Despite the Supreme Court's announcement in February that it would hear the case on an expedited schedule, the timeline was not particularly swift, with oral arguments set approximately seven weeks later. This delay represented a notable partial victory for Mr. Trump, whose trial was initially anticipated to commence on March 4th.

Even if the court expedites the process and decisively rules against Mr. Trump within a month, the trial is unlikely to commence until at least the fall, coinciding with the peak of the presidential campaign season. Should the court delay its ruling until late June or remand the case to lower courts for further deliberation on the extent of any immunity, the trial might not occur until after the election.

In the event that Mr. Trump emerges victorious in the election, he could direct the Justice Department to dismiss the charges against him.

When accepting the case, the Supreme Court specified the issue it would address: "Whether and to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

This statement has received close examination. On one hand, it appeared to exclude consideration of Mr. Trump's argument that his acquittal in his second impeachment trial, where he faced charges of inciting insurrection, precluded any prosecution on similar charges. (Fifty-seven senators voted against him, 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction.)

In the brief submitted on Monday, Mr. Smith leaned on a 1974 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Nixon, wherein the court mandated that President Richard M. Nixon, still in office at the time, comply with a trial subpoena demanding tapes of his Oval Office conversations, rejecting his assertions of executive privilege.

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, speaking for a unanimous court, stated, "Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can justify an absolute, unqualified presidential immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

In their own brief filed the prior month, Mr. Trump’s attorneys urged the justices to consider a different case involving Nixon, Nixon v. Fitzgerald. This case, brought by an Air Force analyst who alleged he was dismissed in 1970 in retaliation for criticizing cost overruns, was decided by the Supreme Court in 1982, several years after Nixon left office.

The justices ruled in Nixon's favor with a 5-4 decision. "In view of the special nature of the president’s constitutional office and functions," wrote Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. for the majority, "we think it appropriate to recognize absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility."

Mr. Smith argued in his submission on Monday that this precedent did not apply in criminal cases. "This case involves the far more significant interest of upholding federal criminal law in a prosecution initiated by the executive branch itself," he contended. "That was not the case in Fitzgerald."

The latest case, Trump v. United States, No. 23-939, is just one of three on the Supreme Court’s agenda this term related to Mr. Trump and the allegations against him. Last month, the justices dismissed a challenge to his eligibility for holding office. Additionally, next week, the court will deliberate on the extent of two charges in the federal election interference case brought by Mr. Smith.

In his Monday filing, Mr. Smith emphasized the significant consequences at stake.

“The gravity, breadth, and detrimental impact on democracy of the purported offenses are unparalleled in American history,” he stated. “Except for former President Nixon, who was pardoned before facing criminal charges, the petitioner can't cite any former president accused of engaging in remotely similar behavior.”