US Court Rejects Trump's Immunity Bid
It's official. Donald Trump has no presidential immunity. In a landmark ruling, the U.S. court ruled that Donald Trump can be prosecuted for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
In the annals of legal history, this case echoes loudly. Trump had argued that his presidential duties made him immune to criminal charges. However, the Tuesday ruling by Washington D.C. was a united front against his claim.
Immunity or Power Abuse?
This is undoubtedly a blow for Trump, who has long wielded the shield of presidential immunity against numerous cases. In a strongly worded opinion, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Trump's idea that a president has unlimited authority to commit criminal acts.
These judges declared Trump a citizen rather than a president in the context of criminal cases filed against him. They reminded us that Trump has no greater defenses than any other defendant.
Is Legal Tide Turning Against Trump?
As soon as the ruling broke out, Trump's campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, publicly disagreed with the court's decision. He signaled an appeal, which may go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 majority. Trump has until February 12 to file his appeal.
Cheung painted a dire scenario, asserting that if a president doesn't get complete immunity, every outgoing president could face immediate indictment by the opposition. A president, Cheung claimed, won't be able to function correctly without this safeguard.
Some of Trump's most forceful defenders predict the Supreme Court will overturn this ruling. New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who could be Trump's vice-presidential nominee if he is the Republican ticket-holder in the next election, stated the ruling "threatens the nation's very foundation."
ALSO READ : American Bankers, Chamber of Commerce File Lawsuit Against Community Reinvestment Act Regulations
Whose Presidential Immunity Is It, Anyway?
However, the three-judge panel brushed aside the idea of granting immunity to a president. They stated it would imperil the balance of power in the U.S. government, designed to have three separate yet interrelated branches acting as checks on each other.
They alluded that Trump's alleged attempts to stay in power, despite losing the 2020 election, constituted an unparalleled attack on the government's structure. The judges warned that Trump's approach could destabilize the entire system of separated powers, making a president untouchable by all three branches.
The judges, two appointed by Democrats and one by Republicans, categorically stated that the presidential office can't provide lifetime legal immunity to its occupants.
U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith had charged 77-year-old Trump with conspiracy to revoke Joe Biden's 2020 election triumph and committing fraud to keep his power. That case trial was initially scheduled for March 4 but was postponed pending the resolution of the immunity pleading. Now, it can wait for weeks or even months, depending on the potential involvement of the Supreme Court.
Prospects of an Appeal
The Supreme Court has the option to suspend the lower court's decision, to refuse such a request, or to resolve the immunity issue themselves immediately. The justices could decide if they opt for the third approach as early as June.
However, renowned lawyer Neal Katyal, who has contested cases before the Supreme Court, hinted through a social media post that the court might not even consider the case. He found Trump's argument weak and praised the thoroughness of the Court of Appeals' decision.
The ruling, he argued, was exact and well-documented, spanning over 57 pages filled with legal citations and historical references. Legal experts like ex-federal prosecutor Patrick Cotter opined that the ruling metaphorically told Trump, "You're not even close."
Ultimately, his lawyers' argument might doom Trump's immunity bid. They claimed a president not convicted by Congress-led impeachment can't be subject to criminal proceedings. However, the judges said such an interpretation would mean a president could commit any crime without fear of consequences, provided he avoids impeachment and conviction.
