Donald Trump is not legally immune from prosecution for acts he committed during his presidency. That was the unanimous decision of a three-judge federal appeals court that issued its ruling on Tuesday and to which the former president appealed after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan – who is presiding over the case against the Republican for attempting to overturn the law to change results of the 2020 election – also rejected Trump's argument that he could not be held accountable for actions committed in the White House. The former president, who faces four counts in the case, can still appeal to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and later to the Supreme Court, which would have the final say.
“For purposes of this criminal proceeding, former President Trump has become Citizen Trump, with all the defenses of any other criminal defense attorney. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him during his term as President no longer protects him from this prosecution,” Das wrote Panel in its 57-page judgment.
At the appeals court hearing, which Trump attended voluntarily, his lawyer even argued that the president should enjoy immunity from prosecution for all crimes committed while in office unless Congress itself convicted him. Even for murdering political rivals.
The justices believe Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite defeat in the 2020 election would constitute an unprecedented attack on the structure of American government if proven. “We cannot accept former President Trump’s assertion that a president has unlimited authority to commit crimes that would override the most basic check on executive power – the recognition and implementation of election results. “We also cannot condone his obvious assertion that the executive branch has carte blanche to violate the right of individual citizens to vote and have their votes counted,” the ruling says.
There is relative legal consensus on broad immunity for sitting presidents, but Trump tried to argue that such immunity could also be applied to former presidents already out of office for actions they committed while in office White House unless they have been charged and convicted of a crime. Although Trump was impeached on January 6, 2021 for inciting the insurrection at the US Capitol, the Senate later acquitted him. Therefore, his lawyers argue that he should be tried twice for the same crime. No other US president – current or former – has ever been impeached before Trump, so there is no legal precedent in this regard.
The justices also rejected Trump's argument that the lack of criminal immunity will leave future presidents vulnerable to politically motivated prosecutions once they leave office. Although Trump has promised retaliation as president if he returns to the White House, the justices note in their ruling that prosecutors have “ethical obligations not to pursue unfounded prosecutions.” Additionally, they emphasize that there are “additional protections to prevent unfounded charges, including the right to be indicted by a grand jury if probable cause is found.”
The ruling goes beyond simply rejecting the former president's claim to immunity. In fact, the judges go so far in their legal reasoning that Trump violated his duty as president to protect and enforce the results of an election. “The president has a constitutional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully carried out.” […] Of course the president also has a duty […] to faithfully enforce the laws. This duty includes complying with the legal procedures for determining the election results and ensuring that executive power rests with the new president at the constitutionally established date. To the extent that former President Trump claims that the litigation that his campaign and supporters unsuccessfully pursued after the 2020 election took effect [presidential] “If he does his duty, he commits a mistake,” the document says. “Former President Trump’s alleged conduct is inconsistent with his constitutional mandate to enforce the laws that govern the process of electing the new president. “The public has a strong interest in the fundamental principle of our government that the will of the people, as expressed in the vote of the Electoral College, determines who serves as president,” the justices add.
His legal justification includes accusations of profundity since the justices ruled that Trump violated his duties to enforce the law in connection with the election. “That duty includes complying with the legal procedures for determining the results of the election and ensuring that executive power returns to the new president at the constitutionally appointed time.” To the extent that former President Trump claims that the legal dispute following the 2020 election that his campaign and unsuccessfully persecuted his supporters, fulfilled his duty of care [to follow the law]“He is wrong,” they judge. “Former President Trump’s alleged conduct contradicts his constitutional mandate to enforce the laws that govern the process of electing a new president. “The public has a strong interest in the founding principle of our government that the will of the people, as expressed in the vote of the Electoral College, determines who serves as president,” they add.
The ruling finds that former President Trump's immunity would breach the system of separation of powers by putting him beyond the reach of all three. “Presidential immunity from federal prosecution would mean that Congress could not legislate, the executive branch could not prosecute, and the judiciary could not review the president,” the justices point out.
The justices also look to the Watergate scandal to reject Trump's claim of near-absolute immunity. “Recent historical evidence suggests that former presidents, including President Trump, did not assume that they would be completely immune from criminal liability for official acts during their presidency. “President Gerald Ford issued a full pardon to former President Richard Nixon, which both former presidents apparently felt was necessary to avoid indictment of Nixon after his resignation,” the ruling states.
Criminal proceedings postponed
Although Trump's appeal was rejected, his lawyers have managed to buy time for now. Last Friday, Judge Chutkan indefinitely postponed the criminal trial of the former president on election interference charges scheduled for March 4. The Republican is facing four criminal proceedings with a total of 91 charges.
Back in December, Judge Chutkan had refused to dismiss the case on immunity grounds in a harsh ruling that said the Office of the President “does not grant lifelong release from prison.” Trump's legal team then appealed to the DC Court of Appeals, which has now rejected their appeal. Normally an appeal does not completely cripple a case, but it did in this case because the question at issue is whether or not the former president can be indicted and tried.
Special counsel Jack Smith urged the Supreme Court to look into the matter and issue a swift ruling, but the court refused to get involved – at least for now, leaving the case to the appeals court. Trump can still appeal to the full appeals court and, if he loses, take his case to the Supreme Court, which is expected to accept it. All of this would delay the process even further.
In this particular case, Smith charged him with four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, efforts to obstruct the vote certification process, and conspiracy to violate civil rights. Trump claims the election was stolen from him, although he is not specifically accused of lying. Rather, the charges are based on the actions Trump took to change the outcome of the 2020 election and prevent the certification of Joe Biden's victory.
Trump is trying to delay his criminal trial while Smith wants to get him tried by a jury before the November election. If Trump is elected while the case is still pending in Washington, he could order the Justice Department to drop him or pardon himself.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to receive more English-language news from EL PAÍS USA Edition