The judges ruled that immunity that protects a president no longer apply to ‘citizen Trump.’ The case will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on Feb. 6 that former President Donald Trump was not immune to prosecution for conduct that the Justice Department (DOJ) included in its indictment related to the events of Jan. 6, 2021.
“We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed,” the decision reads.
“We conclude that ‘[c]oncerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government’ compel the rejection of his claim of immunity in this case,” the judges added, citing precedents.
The appeal was heard by Judges Karen Henderson, Michelle Childs, and Florence Pan. The decision was unanimous.
Notably, the judges seemed to sidestep interpreting presidential immunity as it pertains to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld broad immunity from civil suits, but has not established immunity from criminal prosecution.
“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 judges wrote. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.”
Here, the court stated, President Trump bears the burden of establishing the case for his immunity. He advanced arguments based on jurisdiction, functional policy considerations related to separation of powers, and the impeachment clause, and the judges rejected all three.
The ruling will likely be appealed by President Trump’s attorneys, who decried the Biden administration’s prosecution as encouraging cycles of recrimination for future presidents. The Supreme Court previously declined Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request to fast-track the case, but it could end up there regardless.
Anticipating such a petition, the appeals court has directed the court clerk to “withhold issuance of the mandate through February 12, 2024,” holding onto the case instead of handing it back to the district court.
By Sam Dorman and Catherine Yang
