(Headline USA) A three-person federal appeals panel featuring two Biden appointees ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump can face trial on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, sharply rejecting the former president’s claims that he is immune from prosecution while setting the stage for additional challenges that could further delay the case.
The judges in the case were Karen LeCraft Henderson, a 79-year-old appointee of former president George H. W. Bush, as well as J. Michelle Childs and Florence Y. Pan, both of whom were appointed by current President Joe Biden.
Childs, a black woman, notably was on Biden’s short list for the U.S. Supreme Court, although the nomination ultimately went to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The ruling comes as no surprise given the composition of the appellate court panel, but it is likely to be rendered moot if the Supreme Court rules on the case later this year.
Nonetheless, it breathes life back into a landmark prosecution that had been effectively frozen for weeks and could fast-track a trial should the higher court opt to punt on its decision in order to avoid the political fray.
Although it marks yet another legal hurdle for Trump, the one-month gap between when the court heard arguments and issued its ruling has already created uncertainty about the timing of a trial in a calendar-jammed election year, with district court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, canceling the initial March 4 date last week.
Trump’s team vowed to appeal, which could postpone the case by weeks or months—particularly if the Supreme Court agrees to take it up. The appeals panel gave Trump a week to ask the Supreme Court to get involved.
The eventual trial date carries enormous political ramifications, with special counsel Jack Smith’s team hoping to prosecute Trump this year and the Republican front-runner seeking to delay it until after the November election.
If Trump were to defeat Biden, he could presumably try to use his position as head of the executive branch to order a new attorney general to dismiss the federal cases he faces or potentially could seek a pardon for himself if convicted.
The opinion, which had been expected given the skepticism with which the panel greeted the Trump team’s arguments, was unsparing in its repudiation of Trump’s argument that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties.
“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the court wrote. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.”
The judges said the public interest in criminal accountability “outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action,” turning aside the claim that a president has “unbounded authority to commit crimes” that would prevent the recognition of election results or violate the rights of citizens to vote.
“We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” the judges wrote.
Trump’s supporters contend that there was no insurrection during the Jan. 6 uprising, and that the president’s calls to protest peacefully during a “Save America” rally beforehand were entirely detached from any subsequent criminal activity at the U.S. Capitol as citizens exercised their First Amendment rights to voice disapproval of the highly disputed Electoral College outcome.
Growing evidence has suggested that undercover federal agents and plain-clothed officers with the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department had infiltrated right-wing groups and may have been responsible for instigating violence against the U.S. Capitol Police.
A Trump spokesman said Tuesday that Trump would appeal the ruling “in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution.”
In a post on Truth Social after the ruling was issued, Trump insisted that a president “must have Full Immunity in order to properly function and do what has to be done for the good of our Country.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit took center stage in the immunity dispute after the Supreme Court in December said it was at least temporarily staying out, rejecting a request from Smith’s team to take up the matter quickly and issue a speedy ruling. But the high court could yet decide to act on a Trump appeal.
There is no timetable for the Supreme Court to act, but the justices are likely to seek Smith’s input before deciding whether to keep the legal rulings against the former president in place. If the court declines to consider the appeal, Chutkan would be able to restart the trial proceedings.
If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court accedes to Trump’s request, any timetable it establishes would determine how much longer the trial might be delayed.
If the court grants Trump’s request without speeding up the appeals process, Trump would likely have until early May before he would need to file his full appeal. But the justices could set much quicker deadlines for reaching a final decision.
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
They said Trump’s actions—including his calls for then Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the results of the election—fell within the “outer perimeters” of a president’s official acts.
But Smith’s team has claimed that no such immunity exists in the U.S. Constitution or in prior cases and that, in any event, Trump’s actions weren’t part of his official duties.
Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, rejected Trump’s arguments in a December opinion that said the office of the president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”
Trump’s lawyers then turned to the D.C. appeals court, but Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in first, in hopes of securing a fast and definitive ruling and preserving the March 4 trial date. The high court declined the request, leaving the matter with the appeals court.
The judges made clear their skepticism of Trump’s claims during arguments last month, when they peppered his lawyer with questions and posed a series of extreme hypotheticals to test his legal theory of immunity—including whether a president who directed Navy commandos to assassinate a political rival could be prosecuted.
Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, answered yes—but only if a president had first been impeached and convicted by Congress. That view was in keeping with the team’s position that the Constitution did not permit the prosecution of ex-presidents who had been impeached but then acquitted, like Trump.
The case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. He faces federal charges in Florida that he illegally retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, a case that was also brought by Smith and is set for trial in May.
A parallel investigation involving Biden, led by special counsel Robert Hur, was reported to have concluded on Tuesday with no charges expected to be filed, despite the fact that Trump’s actions were arguably protected under the Presidential Records Act and Biden’s were not.
Trump is also charged in state court in Georgia with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election and in New York in connection with hush money payments made to porn actor Stormy Daniels. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Both of the district attorneys pressing those cases have been under public scrutiny of their own, which could throw the cases into disarray if not end them altogether.
Fulton County DA Fani Willis faces a storm of controversy over her relationship with a subordinate prosecutor, Nathan Wade. Willis allegedly overpaid Wade, who was dubiously qualified for the role of special prosecutor, and the two then used the money to go on a series of lavish vacations. Willis claims she is the victim of a racist conspiracy.
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has faced calls to be fired after releasing the illegal immigrants who viciously attacked two police officers in New York City’s Times Square last week.
Both prosecutors received funding from leftist billionaire George Soros and campaigned on promises to prosecute Trump as part of a coordinated lawfare campaign being waged by Democrats.
Before filing charges, Willis consulted with Vice President Kamala Harris and with Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who led the partisan House Jan. 6 committee. The committee, whose work provided the basis for Smith’s case as well, was discovered to have illegally deleted troves of evidence prior to the Republicans taking power in January 2023.
Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press
