The rejection of Trump’s Immunity Claim by a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals is a significant development in former President Donald Trump’s federal election interference case.
This decision, which dismisses the notion of presidential immunity, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal proceedings related to the former president’s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.
The panel’s 57-page decision, delivered in early January, unequivocally stated that “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.”
The court’s rejection of Trump’s immunity claim was based on three potential bases for immunity, all of which were dismissed as a categorical defense to federal criminal prosecutions of former Presidents and as applied to this case in particular.
The judges wrote, “We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power – the recognition and implementation of election results.”
The judges also rejected Trump’s contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count. They argued that such a stance would collapse the system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches of government.
Responding to the ruling, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement that “President Trump respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit’s decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution. If immunity is not granted to a President, every future President who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party. Without complete immunity, a President of the United States would not be able to properly function!”
The appellate judges heard arguments on Trump’s efforts to dismiss the case on immunity grounds in early January. Last week, after waiting nearly a month for the appellate court’s decision, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan postponed the March 4 start date for Trump’s trial.
Trump, who pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election, was seeking the dismissal of the case on the grounds that he has “absolute immunity” from prosecution for actions taken while serving in the nation’s highest office.
The former president, who attended the Jan. 9 hearing in person, has denied all wrongdoing and denounced the election interference charges as “a persecution of a political opponent.”
The appeals court took up the matter after the Supreme Court in December denied the special counsel’s request to immediately take up Trump’s claims of immunity, declining to grant a writ of certiorari before judgment – meaning it would allow a federal appeals court to hear the matter first, which is what Trump’s legal team had sought.
In their decision, the appellate judges gave Trump until Feb. 12 to ask the Supreme Court to stay the appellate court’s ruling and take up the issue on an emergency basis. It’s not immediately clear when the Supreme Court would respond to such a request. For more details, you can refer to the official court document.
Trump could also ask the full D.C. Circuit Court to rehear the case, but that separate request would not prevent the proceedings from being sent back to Judge Chutkan’s trial court unless the full court agreed to take up the issue.
This landmark decision has set a precedent that could have far-reaching implications for the limits of presidential power and the interpretation of executive immunity. As the legal saga continues, the nation and the world will be watching closely to see how this case unfolds what it could mean for future presidents, and the balance of power in the U.S. government.
