A federal appeals court has soundly rejected claims made by former President Donald Trump asserting that his purported “presidential immunity” shields him from any liability relating to violent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. The court also ruled he can be charged for trying to usurp the results of the 2020 presidential election.
In December, federal Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the pre-trial stage of the case against Trump alleging that he tried to defraud the U.S. government by engaging in actions to overturn the election, rejected claims by the former president’s lawyers that the trial should be dismissed entirely due to him having presidential immunity. The lawyers argued that Trump was simply acting in his capacity as president at the time and cannot be charged for doing so after leaving office. They appealed Chutkan’s ruling to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where a three-judge panel heard his claims in early January.
On Tuesday, nearly a month after those judges held that hearing, the court issued a unanimous ruling affirming Chutkan’s original findings. “Former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the D.C. court wrote in its opinion. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.”
The court said what Trump had requested would be unprecedented, stating that:
Former President Trump’s claimed immunity would have us extend the framework for Presidential civil immunity to criminal cases and decide for the first time that a former President is categorically immune from federal criminal prosecution for any act conceivably within the outer perimeter of his executive responsibility.
Lawyers for Trump echoed in court what he’s been saying in public statements: that former presidents cannot be prosecuted because it would stymie the work of current presidents if they knew they could be held accountable for their actions after leaving office.
Incredibly, during the January appellate court hearing, Trump attorney John Sauer asserted this kind of protection could also extend to presidents ordering assassinations against their political rivals, and that impeachment alone was the only course of action to take against presidents wielding their powers in such dangerous ways.
The appellate court forcefully rejected these notions, pointing to the fact that the Supreme Court has rejected such arguments before in United States v. Nixon, in which the high court said that it could not “conclude that [Presidential] advisers will be moved to temper the candor of their remarks by the infrequent occasions of disclosure because of the possibility that such conversations will be called for in the context of a criminal prosecution.”
The opinion went on to state that, “We cannot presume that a President will be unduly cowed by the prospect of post-Presidency criminal liability any more than a juror would be influenced by the prospect of post-deliberation criminal liability, or an executive aide would be quieted by the prospect of the disclosure of communications in a criminal prosecution.”
Noting that Trump’s layers previously claimed in his 2021 impeachment defense the exact opposite — that the proper place to hold presidents accountable is after their tenure, the opinion also stated that, “past Presidents have understood themselves to be subject to impeachment and criminal liability, at least under certain circumstances, so the possibility of chilling executive action is already in effect.”
Further, the court expressly discussed Trump’s specific actions on and around January 6, writing that his “alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, [are] an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government.”
The court added that, “He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role — the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes — thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of the Congress.”
Ultimately, it would be wrong “to immunize former President Trump’s actions,” the court concluded, stating that:
We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.
A spokesperson for Trump said the former president will appeal the ruling to a higher court. Trump can do so, either to the full D.C. District Court of Appeals in an en banc request or directly to the Supreme Court. If the high court does agree to hear the case, it doesn’t have to issue a stay, either: It can grant writ of certiorari to hear the arguments at a later date while still allowing the case to continue onward in Judge Chutkan’s court.
Legal experts lauded the ruling, noting that the way in which it was worded would likely mean the Supreme Court wouldn’t grant an appeals hearing. “I’ve skimmed the DC Circuit opinion rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments. Yes, they took their time, but it was worth it,” wrote Boston University School of Law Professor Jed Shugerman in a post on X. “It’s a thorough unanimous opinion that covers all the bases, so [the Supreme Court] is more likely to deny cert, and more likely a trial starts.”
Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal also chimed in on X, writing, “I do not think the Supreme Court will hear Trump’s appeal. Of course, anything can happen and it takes 4 of the 9 Justices to vote to hear a case. But Trump’s argument is so weak and the Court of Appeals decision so thorough and well done, I can see [the Supreme Court] voting not to hear it.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.