A federal appeals court has ruled against Donald Trump’s claim of broad immunity from prosecution for alleged actions taken as president to contest the 2020 election results, leading to the January 6 Capitol attack. Trump, facing the possibility of a trial scheduled for March, is expected to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking to halt the proceedings.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously determined that former presidents do not possess absolute immunity from prosecution for acts committed in office. This decision comes amidst Trump’s involvement in four criminal cases, even as he leads the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
The appeals court’s decision is pivotal for the trial’s timing, especially with the upcoming election. Special counsel Jack Smith has urged for the trial to proceed on schedule. Should Trump win the presidency again, he could potentially dismiss the charges or issue a pardon to himself.
The case against Trump includes charges of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruct an official proceeding, to which he has pleaded not guilty. Trump’s defense, referencing a 1982 Supreme Court decision, argued for presidential immunity for actions within the president’s official duties, admitting that post-office prosecution for unrelated acts is permissible.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan previously dismissed Trump’s request to drop the charges based on presidential immunity and other constitutional defenses, awaiting the outcome of the appeals process. Special counsel Smith’s team has countered, stating that the Constitution does not protect former presidents from criminal charges for actions in office, especially not for efforts to undermine the transfer of power.