US Appeals Court Rules Trump Can be Prosecuted in 2020 Election Interference Case
In a significant ruling, a federal appeals panel has determined that former President Donald Trump can face trial on charges related to his alleged plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The decision comes as a blow to Trump’s claims of immunity from prosecution and sets the stage for potential appeals that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
This marks the second time in as many months that judges have rejected Trump’s immunity arguments, affirming that he can be prosecuted for actions taken while in the White House and leading up to the infamous January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters. The trial was initially scheduled for March but has been postponed, with no new date set.
The trial date carries significant political implications, particularly if Trump emerges as the Republican primary front-runner and hopes to delay the trial until after the November election. If he were to defeat President Joe Biden, Trump could potentially use his position as head of the executive branch to order a new attorney general to dismiss the federal cases or seek a pardon for himself.
The appeals court’s involvement in the immunity dispute comes after the Supreme Court declined to intervene, rejecting a request to expedite the matter and issue a speedy ruling. The key question at hand is whether former presidents can be prosecuted after leaving office for actions taken in the White House related to their official duties.
Trump’s lawyers have argued that presidents should be immune from criminal prosecution, just as they are immune from civil liability for official acts. They claim that Trump’s alleged actions aimed at retaining power after losing the 2020 election fell within the “outer perimeters” of a president’s official acts. However, special counsel Jack Smith’s team contends that no such immunity exists in the Constitution or prior cases, and that Trump’s actions were not part of his official duties.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, presiding over the case, rejected Trump’s arguments in a December 1 opinion, stating that the office of the president does not confer a lifelong “get-out-of-jail-free” pass. Trump’s lawyers then appealed to the D.C. appeals court, but Smith sought the Supreme Court’s intervention first to secure a decisive ruling and preserve the March 4 trial date.
During arguments before the appeals court, Judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs, both appointees of President Biden, along with Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, expressed skepticism towards Trump’s claims. They posed hypothetical scenarios to test the limits of the legal theory of immunity, including whether a president who ordered the assassination of a political rival could be prosecuted. Trump’s lawyer responded affirmatively but only if the president had been impeached and convicted by Congress.
This case in Washington is just one of four criminal prosecutions faced by Trump as he aims to reclaim the White House. He also faces federal charges in Florida for illegally retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, a case set for trial in May. Additionally, he is charged in Georgia state court for allegedly scheming to subvert the state’s 2020 election and in New York for hush money payments made to porn actor Stormy Daniels. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
As the legal battles continue, the outcome of these prosecutions will have far-reaching implications for the accountability of presidents and their actions while in office. The trial’s delay and potential appeals to higher courts indicate that this case is far from over and will likely remain a significant point of contention in the political landscape for some time.
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay up-to-date with the latest news delivered right to your inbox.
