An appeals court heard arguments today in an important Donald Trump legal case just steps from where protesters invaded Capitol Hill three years ago. At stake is whether or not he can avoid prosecution for inciting his supporters to storm Congress.
A judge has ordered that trial proceedings are suspended while higher courts consider immunity claims, though the Supreme Court decided against taking an unusual step and intervening early.
What’s happening?
A three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear arguments this week in Donald Trump’s legal dispute regarding his claims of immunity from prosecution. This hearing, expected to last 45 minutes or longer and broadcast live online, will last live.
Judge Karen Henderson was appointed by President George HW Bush while Michelle Childs and Florence Pan were chosen by President Joe Biden. Dean John Sauer, former Missouri solicitor general and clerk to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will argue on Trump’s behalf while James Pearce will represent special counsel Jack Smith as part of his legal representation team at this hearing.
Lawyers representing both sides will also need to address points raised by outside groups filing friend-of-the-court briefs, such as American Oversight’s claim that this appeals court doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear an immunity argument at this stage of litigation.
Who’s going to argue?
Federal courts will soon consider whether former President Donald Trump can escape prosecution under his immunity law. Trump’s lawyers contend he cannot be charged for responding to election interference under his constitutional responsibilities; but special prosecutor Jack Smith maintains that his claim of immunity would “license future presidents to commit crimes in order to remain in office”.
Case is being heard by a three-judge panel composed of Judges Karen Henderson, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan appointed by Republican presidents; should one side lose, they could appeal the ruling to an 11 judge full court bench for further review.
American Oversight argues that Donald Trump’s immunity claim should be disregarded because criminal defendants usually need to be found guilty before appealing an indictment on grounds of executive privilege at an appeals court. Meanwhile, the Justice Department contends that its immunity question merits review.
What’s the judge’s decision?
A judge will ultimately decide whether Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution on four charges brought against him, issuing their ruling quickly so the case may be concluded as quickly as possible. If they rule against Trump, he can file an appeal to the Supreme Court; however, justices do not need to consider his request and may simply leave the appeals court ruling intact.
Special counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon to make a quick decision without waiting for an appeals court ruling, but this request was denied without any dissents from justices’ brief unsigned decision. If Trump’s immunity claim is upheld, then his actions related to election conspiracy should no longer be prosecuted; however, civil lawsuits or state attorney cases brought by state attorneys still could continue against him while constitutional disputes could delay their trial further.
What’s the outcome?
As this case is being heard on an expedited schedule, a ruling in this matter could come quickly. If the judge rules against Donald Trump, he could appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court; then they would decide if taking up and issuing their own ruling might also happen quickly.
Trump’s lawyers contend that being president provides absolute immunity from prosecution for acts deemed part of one’s “official duties.” Additionally, prosecuting him for his alleged role in inciting riots at Congress to forcibly disrupt legislative sessions would violate his constitutional rights.
Smith’s legal team has asserted that upholding Smith’s sweeping immunity claim would undermine essential checks and balances of our Constitution. They noted in court documents last month that such an outcome would allow future presidents to order National Guard members to kill critics or sell nuclear secrets overseas without legal consequences.
- 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
