President Trump does not have presidential immunity in January 6 lawsuit, federal appeals court rules

CNN
—

Donald Trump will not be immune from prosecution for crimes he committed while president in an effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election, a federal appeals court announced Tuesday.

The ruling was a major blow to Trump’s important defense work in the federal election destruction case brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith. The former president had argued that the acts Smith accused of were part of his official duties as president, and therefore he could escape criminal liability.

“For the purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump assumed all other criminal defense defenses and became a Trump citizen. But the executive immunity that may have protected him during his presidency is no longer with him. does not protect him from prosecution,” the court said.

The ruling by a three-judge panel was unanimous. The three-judge panel that handed down its ruling on Tuesday included two judges, J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, who were appointed by Joe Biden and George H.W. One person included: Karen LeCraft Henderson.

The Trump campaign could appeal the ruling directly to the Supreme Court or first seek en banc review from the Court of Appeals. That means the case will be tried again, but this time by the full D.C. Circuit.

The court said that if proven, President Trump’s efforts to usurp the 2020 presidential election would constitute an “unprecedented attack on the structure of our nation’s government.”

“If the president, who is given a constitutional duty to “see that the laws are faithfully executed,” is the only official who can violate those laws with impunity, then “This would be a striking contradiction,” they wrote.

The judges flatly rejected Trump’s argument that criminal charges would have a “chilling effect” on future presidents.

“Furthermore, past presidents have understood that, at least under certain circumstances, they are subject to impeachment and criminal liability, which already has the potential to chill executive action,” the opinion states.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that future executives will be more reluctant to act within their roles if they believe they could be indicted for “official acts” as president. Ta.

The committee concluded that “the risk of chilling presidential action or condoning meaningless and harassing prosecutions is unlikely, unsupported by history, and “shaping the direction of the judiciary.” It’s too far away and too overshadowed.” Therefore, we conclude that functional policy considerations rooted in the structure of government do not exempt former presidents from federal criminal prosecution. ”

Mr. Trump is facing four charges in connection with Mr. Smith’s alleged destruction of the election, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct official proceedings. The former president has maintained his innocence.

Trump has argued that as part of his official capacity as president, he is working to “ensure election integrity” and therefore is immune from criminal prosecution if he attempts to overturn the election results. His lawyers also argued that because Trump was acquitted by the Senate during impeachment proceedings, he is protected by double jeopardy and the Justice Department cannot charge him with similar conduct.

In December, the district judge overseeing Trump’s criminal case in Washington, D.C., rejected his immunity claim, writing that being president “does not confer a lifetime ‘get out of jail free’ pass.” Trump immediately appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit, which agreed to expedite its review of the matter.

The appeals court found that Trump was not protected from criminal prosecution under the Separation of Powers Clause.

“Here, former President Trump’s actions allegedly violated generally applicable criminal law, meaning they did not fall properly within his legal discretion.” wrote, meaning that existing case law “does not confer structural immunity on him from the charges in the indictment.” ”

They continued, “Properly understood, the doctrine of separation of powers may exempt legitimate discretionary acts, but it does not preclude federal criminal prosecution of a former president for any official act.” ” he said.

The court said Trump asked it to “affirm for the first time that former presidents have categorical immunity from federal criminal prosecution for any conduct that could be considered on the fringe of executive responsibility.”

This story has been updated with additional details.

CNN’s Holmes Lybrand and Caitlin Polantz contributed to this report.