Jack Smith Faces Huge Hurdle From Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will likely set a high standard for prosecutors to prove that Donald Trump illegally interfered in the 2020 presidential election, a legal expert has said.

The court has agreed to hear Trump's claim that he has presidential immunity from prosecution.

Greg Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University in New York, told Newsweek that the Supreme Court will likely insist that Jack Smith , who is leading the prosecution, will have to prove Trump's intentions beyond a reasonable doubt.

"I think the Court will require the government to prove by a high standard that Trump knowingly attempted to interfere with the fair vote count, and direct that the immunity issue be considered before proceeding to the merits," he said.

"Whether the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was in Trump's mind will then have to be determined by the lower courts."

Smith's investigation focused on Trump's actions leading up to and during the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, when a group of his supporters violently protested the election, which Trump has said was stolen. Smith's investigation also looked into alleged efforts to submit false slates of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College. Indicted on four felony counts, Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and maintains that he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

He remains the frontrunner to take the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential election.

Newsweek sought email comment from Trump's attorney on Sunday.

Germain said he didn't think that the Supreme Court would issue a divided decision because there is too much at stake.

"Unlike many commentators who think the Court will issue a divided political opinion determining that Trump is immune, I would be very surprised if the Court broadly decided the merits of the immunity question, because it would open the door to any administration interfering in the election process with impunity in order to remain in power," he said.

He said the court may simply affirm the Washington, D.C. appellate court's finding that Trump does not have presidential immunity. Alternatively, it may ask the appellate court, or even Trump's trial judge, Tanya Chutkan, to apply the Supreme Court's standard before reaching a decision on Trump's immunity.

"If, as I expect, the Court will rule that a president has limited immunity for certain kinds of acts and not others, I would expect the court either to affirm, or more likely to remand to the appellate court, or possibly the trial court for fact finding, to decide the immunity question under the standard set by the Court," he said.