A former president may be prosecuted for alleged crimes they committed while in office, according to a unanimous 57-page decision from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The federal appeals court panel’s ruling is an important victory for special counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting former President Donald Trump on federal felony charges stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump can appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court — and probably will — since he is accused of conspiracy after his election defeat in 2020.
With the decision, the court on Tuesday rejected a request for immunity by Trump, a question likely to be finally clarified by the country’s Supreme Court.
The reasoning behind the appeals court’s decision said the court carefully weighed Trump’s asserted interests in immunity “against the important public interests in pursuing this prosecution.”
Trump thus recorded a heavy legal defeat. But this was to be expected – at a hearing, the Court of Appeals had already shown skepticism and indicated that it would not follow the arguments of Trump’s lawyers.
His verdict will determine whether the trial for attempted election fraud against Trump can continue in the U.S. capital. The judge in charge had postponed the start of the trial indefinitely until the final clarification of the question of immunity on Friday. The 77-year-old wants to return to the White House for the Republicans after the 2024 presidential election and regularly describes the investigations against him as a “political witch hunt”.
Trump is indicted in the U.S. capital Washington in connection with attempted election fraud. His lawyers want the charges dropped, citing Trump’s immunity from serving as president at the time.
Trump supporters had stormed the Capitol in Washington on January 6, 2021, while Congress was meeting to formally confirm the victory of Democrat Joe Biden in the presidential election.
Trump had incited a mob of his supporters in a speech, and in the resulting riots, five people died.
Regardless of the Court of Appeals’ ruling, the question of whether the presidency protects against prosecution is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. After all, it is of national importance.
On the one hand, the indictment against Trump for attempted election fraud stands or falls. For the election campaign, too, it is crucial whether Trump gets justice or not. So far, everything points to a new edition of the race between him and the Democratic incumbent Biden. Last but not least, the decision on protection from prosecution is of immense importance for future presidents. If they really enjoy immunity, they could commit crimes in office without fear of consequences.
Trump’s lawyers, on the other hand, argued on the question of immunity that the Republican could not be legally prosecuted for acts that were part of his duties as president. Trump’s lawyers also told the court that it is only possible to prosecute a president if he has previously been found guilty in impeachment proceedings. That’s not the case with Trump. They therefore requested that the action be dismissed and that the proceedings be discontinued.
The public prosecutor’s office rejected this – and justified this, among other things, by saying that overturning an election result is not part of a president’s official duties. She warned that unlimited immunity from criminal prosecution of a president would open the door to criminal acts of any kind. In the first instance, she was already vindicated.
The Court of Appeal has now upheld this decision. It stated that it had concluded that due to public policy concerns, “in particular in the light of our history and the structure of our government”, a rejection of the request for immunity was warranted. Trump’s view that he should be categorically protected from prosecution for all official acts during his term in office is not supported by history or the text or structure of the Constitution.