WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for his actions to overturn the 2020 election came under scrutiny from federal appeals court judges on Tuesday. The judges, part of a three-woman panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, raised doubts about Trump’s immunity argument during oral arguments.
The court has several options for ruling on the immunity question. It could issue a comprehensive ruling that settles the matter and allows the trial to proceed quickly. Alternatively, it could issue a more limited ruling that leaves some issues unresolved or decide that Trump does not have the right to appeal at this stage of the litigation.
Trump appeared at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. just before the oral arguments began. He sat at his lawyer’s table, passing notes on a yellow legal pad. Special counsel Jack Smith also attended the hearing.
This case is one of the four criminal prosecutions Trump faces as he continues to be the presumptive front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. The timing of the trial, originally scheduled for March, remains uncertain due to Trump’s re-election campaign.
During the hearing, Judge Florence Pan questioned Trump’s lawyer about the extent of presidential immunity, presenting hypothetical situations in which a president could potentially evade prosecution. Trump’s lawyer argued that a sitting president could only be prosecuted after impeachment and conviction by the Senate.
Another judge, Karen Henderson, referred to the president’s constitutional duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. She raised concerns that allowing immunity for criminal law violations would undermine the president’s responsibility to uphold the law.
The panel also discussed past presidents’ experiences with prosecution. Judge Michelle Childs mentioned President Richard Nixon’s pardon, which suggested that presidents could be prosecuted after leaving office. However, Trump’s lawyer claimed that presidents have immunity under the principle of separation of powers.
The Justice Department previously acknowledged that criminal liability involving a president would be unavoidably political. However, Smith, the prosecutor in this case, argued that Trump’s actions to remain in office should not be considered official acts and should therefore be subject to prosecution.
After the hearing, Trump spoke to reporters, maintaining his innocence and criticizing the prosecution as a “threat to democracy.” He insisted that his actions were part of his presidential responsibilities in combatting election fraud, despite the lack of evidence supporting widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
Regardless of the appeals court’s ruling, the losing party is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court. Trump’s appeal is based on a four-count indictment in Washington, including charges of conspiracy and obstruction. Judge Tanya Chutkan previously denied Trump’s attempt to dismiss the indictment on the grounds of presidential immunity.
In conclusion, federal appeals court judges scrutinized Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The court is considering various options for ruling on the immunity question, which will determine the trial’s timing and whether Trump can be held accountable for his actions.