Federal appeals court judges have rejected President Trump’s claim of immunity in his 2020 criminal election case, taking one more step toward its trial.
A three-judge panel unanimously rejected Donald Trump’s argument that he should be exempt from prosecution for his attempts to reverse his election loss, citing public interest considerations in their ruling.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Karen LeCraft Henderson, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan of the Court of Appeals rejected Donald Trump’s argument that his actions as president made him immune from prosecution. They found it unfair that “an undefined immunity from criminal prosecution can be attached to his office”.
Judges determined that Trump, now as an ordinary citizen, no longer enjoys executive immunity. Furthermore, past presidents were aware that they could be prosecuted as potential criminals, while Trump must act legally as an ordinary civilian.
Trump must now face trial on charges that he interfered with the election and attempted to prevent official certification of Vice President Joe Biden’s victory. A three-judge panel ordered this case before a jury, who will ultimately determine whether Trump has violated federal criminal code provisions. Although the Supreme Court declined to intervene, Trump could still try and appeal the ruling either through his appeals process within D.C. Circuit or directly to them.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling could have far-reaching ramifications for future presidents: former President Donald Trump claimed immunity when facing criminal charges over the 2020 election; however, once he left office and became a private citizen he may face prosecution under criminal statutes.
The court concluded that public interest and executive branch accountability, outweighs potential risks of chilling Presidential action and permitting frivolous litigation.” However, the court noted that President Trump may not present persuasive arguments.
Trump’s claims of immunity are effectively doomed with this ruling. While his lawyers could still seek a stay order at the Supreme Court, getting justices to take up this issue may prove challenging. Also, due to this court’s ruling, March 4 trial date may now likely be postponed until an appeals court issues its final verdict on immunity claims.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The appeals court panel expressed great skepticism of Trump’s claims that his attempts to undermine the 2020 election, such as badgering his vice president to refuse certifying results, fell within his official duties as president. They wrote: “To grant these acts immunity would dismantle our system of separation of powers forevermore.”
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed to put any “further proceedings that move this case toward trial or place additional burdens of litigation on Defendant” on hold while an appeals court evaluates his immunity claim, although its ultimate ruling remains unknown.
Courts of appeal rarely hear legal matters before criminal trials start, though immunity and double jeopardy issues could potentially delay his trial, scheduled to begin March 4th. A ruling from an appeals court could potentially extend that delay further by months or years.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (CA 10thCircuit) is a federal appeals court located in Denver, Colorado that oversees federal district courts in six states: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Established by an act of Congress in 1929, it is one of the oldest appellate courts in America.
Judges in an unanimous ruling determined that Trump can be prosecuted for his attempts to overturn Joe Biden’s electoral defeat in 2020. They rejected Trump’s claim of immunity by noting that holding office does not give one lifetime immunity from prosecution.
This ruling clears the path for trial to begin in coming months. Last month, District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan postponed the March 4 start date pending a ruling from D.C. appeals court; legal experts anticipate that in such an instance the Supreme Court could quickly step in and accept direct jurisdiction of this matter if that D.C. court ruling stands upheld.
- Friday Intraday Trading Sees Nvidia’s stock Market Cap Momentarily Cross $2 Trillion
- Trump’s January 6 Civil Cases Proceed While Criminal Case Is Halted
- Trump Delivers Speech at the Columbia Black Conservative Federation Gala
- Trump Declares Strong Support for IVF Following Alabama Supreme Court Decision
- Schumer in Ukraine Declares US Backing During House Aid Standoff