Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected former president Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges related to his role in the January 6th Capital riots. A three-judge panel consisting of one Republican and two Democrat judges found that former presidents are not immune from criminal acts committed while they are in office –rejecting Trump’s claim of absolute immunity. The Court faced novel legal questions as no former president has been indicted, so no appeals court has ever grappled with presidential executive immunity regarding criminal charges. Let’s get into the details.
Background
An appeals court found that a criminal trial concerning Donald Trump’s role in the January 6th Capital Riots can move forward, denying “the former president’s claims that he is immune from prosecution.” The three-judge panel starkly rejected Trump’s claims that he is immune from charges relating to him plotting to overturn his 2020 election defeat.
The appeal stemmed from a decision by Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan, the judge overseeing the D.C. criminal trial. The trial had been scheduled for March 4th, but Judge Chutkan postponed it from her calendar while the appeals process on the immunity issue continued.
In a January 9th hearing, Trump’s lawyers argued that the former president was shielded from prosecution by executive immunity, claiming he was acting in his official capacity as president. “Trump’s lawyers argued that former presidents were entitled to sweeping legal protections and could not be criminally prosecuted for official actions unless first impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate.”
During the public arguments in January, the three-judge panel was skeptical of Trump’s legal arguments claiming absolute immunity, finding his claims posed a danger to the nation’s constitutional system. According to reports, during the hearing, the “three judges expressed concern over the most extreme implications of Trump’s view,” posing extreme hypotheticals about how far the president’s power reached –such as suggesting, for example, that Trump’s position “would allow a future president to order the assassination of a political rival.”
The decision marks a historical moment for the courts, as an appeals court has never had to tackle whether a former president is liable for criminal acts committed while in office. The Court of Appeals decided the immunity dispute after the Supreme Court denied prosecutor Jack Smith’s request to take up the matter and issue a speedy ruling back in December.
What did the Court Decide?
The judge’s opinion was expected given their skepticism during Trump’s legal team’s arguments during the January 9th hearing. The 57-page opinion was “per curiam,” meaning by the court as a whole. The judges wrote, “At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches.”
Concluding that they “could not accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” the judges found Trump’s “sweeping claim of presidential immunity as dangerous and unsupported by the Constitution.” They wrote that presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that “as to the president, the Congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute, and the judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”
What Happens Next?
The D.C. Circuit panel that denied Trump’s immunity defense set tight deadlines to review its decision, “saying it would give Trump only until February 12th to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.” The Supreme Court is not held to a timetable to act, “but the justices are likely to seek Smith’s input before deciding whether to keep the legal rulings against the former president in place. If the Court declines to consider the appeal, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan could restart the trial proceedings.”
The ruling marks a setback for the former president, who is currently facing four felony counts in Washington DC for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, 13 felony counts in Georgia for election interference in that state, 34 felony counts in New York “in connection with hush money payments to a porn star. And in Florida, he faces 40 felony counts for hoarding classified documents after he left office and impeding the government’s efforts to retrieve them.”
Broader Implications
The D.C. trial has been put on hold, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has given Trump and his legal team until Monday to ask the Supreme Court to get involved in his case. The appeals court has stayed its decision until then. The three-judge panel also “imposed a rule designed to discourage Mr. Trump from making an intermediate challenge to the full Court of Appeals. It said that if Mr. Trump instead took that route, trial preparations could begin after Feb. 12.”
If the appeal reaches the Supreme Court, it will either accept the case “or reject it and allow the appeals court’s ruling against Trump to stand.” If this happens and the High Court declines to hear the issue, “the case would be sent directly back to the trial judge, Honorable Chutkan, who would then move forward with the D.C. criminal trial.
A spokesman for Trump, Steven Cheung, said the former president “respectfully disagrees” with the appellate Court’s decision and that he would appeal. Cheung stated, “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.” Additionally, “a spokesman for Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought the case against Mr. Trump, declined to comment on the decision.”
Whether the Supreme Court takes up Trump’s appeal is yet to be determined. Still, the High Court is about to begin hearing oral arguments concerning whether Trump is disqualified from appearing on the Colorado presidential primary ballot because of his role in the January 6 insurrection. Check the blog for updates on former president Trump’s legal battles.
Interested in Election law?
Check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-driven, state trial court research and analytics platform. We make the fragmented U.S. state trial court system searchable through a single interface, and we provide practitioners with analytical insights on judges, cases, and opposing counsel to make actionable decisions in Court. Save time on legal research and writing by tracking lawsuits throughout various states and staying updated with documents from ongoing litigation. Request a demo today and experience the ease of our analytics and API, providing you with the tools needed to streamline your legal practice.
Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/02/06/trump-jan-6-immunity-appeal-denied
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/trump-criminal-investigations-cases-tracker-list
Music: Disruptor’s Dance by Anka Mason
Blog Narration: Anka Mason
