Former President Trump no longer protected by executive immunity
A District of Columbia appellate court panel has unanimously rejected former President Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution on criminal charges related to his alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election results. The bipartisan three-judge panel 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.” The judges emphasized that any executive immunity that may have protected him while in office no longer applies to this prosecution.
Arguments systematically dismantled
The panel’s opinion systematically tore through the arguments presented by Trump’s legal team. It stated that Trump’s stance would undermine the system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches of government. The judges declared that accepting presidential immunity against federal indictment would render Congress unable to legislate, the executive unable to prosecute, and the judiciary unable to review. They firmly stated, “We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”
Charges and implications
Trump faces four federal felonies, including conspiring to obstruct the official certification of President Biden’s election victory and seeking to defraud Americans of their rightful votes. The gravity of these charges weighed in the judges’ decision, considering the people’s interest in elections as a check on presidential power. The decision is likely to be quickly appealed to the Supreme Court. Trump has been given until Monday to appeal, with the option to request a stay from the Supreme Court to extend that date.
Next steps and trial timeline
The Supreme Court may agree to resolve the constitutional question raised by Trump’s claims or let the appellate ruling stand, which would be a defeat for Trump. The outcome of the immunity case will likely determine when Trump’s trial for election interference begins. The trial, originally set for March 4, was recently removed from Judge Tanya Chutkan’s calendar, and pretrial filings have been on hold since December.
Rejection of presidential immunity defense
Trump’s lawyers argued that a former president cannot be charged with a crime for their “official acts” while in office. However, the appellate court opinion rejected this defense, highlighting that it would be a paradox if the president, who is constitutionally duty-bound to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” could defy those laws without consequence. The court emphasized that a president’s fear of potential criminal charges should not impede their ability to make necessary decisions for the country.
Appeal to the Supreme Court
Trump’s campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, stated that Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court. The written statement argues that without complete immunity, a president would not be able to function properly and that prosecuting a president for official acts violates the Constitution. The court, however, dismissed this argument, pointing out that historical precedent and the actions of other former presidents indicate that they are not wholly immune from criminal prosecution for official acts.
Impeachment not a sufficient form of punishment
The appellate court also dismissed the argument that impeachment is the appropriate form of punishment. While Trump was impeached twice by the House, he was not convicted by the Senate. The judges asserted that Trump’s argument would essentially grant a president the freedom to commit crimes without consequence, as long as they avoid impeachment and conviction. They stated that no court has previously imposed such an “irrational ‘impeachment first'” constraint on the criminal prosecution of federal officials.
The decision of the three-member D.C. panel, including judges appointed by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Biden, will likely have significant implications for Trump’s criminal cases. Special counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting Trump, argued that criminal charges can be brought once a president leaves office, particularly for actions unrelated to their official duties. The panel’s ruling emphasizes that it would be dangerous to grant total immunity from criminal charges to a president or former president.
