As expected, a three-judge panel as affirmed Judge Tanya Chutkan’s historic decision that concluded a president is subject to criminal prosecution. The full opinion posted here.
I am in Washington for meetings and to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Thursday morning related to the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that removed Trump from the ballot, so unfortunately I don’t have time right now to provide a deep analysis of today’s landmark opinion on Trump’s immunity claims.
But I wanted to at least share the decision with you.
You can find the full opinion here:
The order was issued “per curiam,” which means the three judges agreed and no one technically authored the mandate. The decision represents an expected win for Chutkan and Special Counsel Jack Smith; last week, Chutkan officially vacated the March 4 trial date as the appellate court continued deliberations.
What Next?
So, the big question now is—what happens next? The appellate court took the additional step of requiring Trump’s lawyers to file a “stay” application—a request to put the appellate mandate on hold indefinitely—at SCOTUS before February 13; until then, the order is on hold by the appellate court until Trump files the application. (I KNOW THIS IS CONFUSING!)
But the court warned that if Trump instead exercised his option of seeking “en banc” review by the appellate court—meaning all judges would hear his appeal—the temporary hold on the proceedings will be lifted and Chutkan can restart the pretrial schedule.
Given the Democratic composition of the full D.C. Circuit court, it makes little sense for Trump to pursue that relief. And since the panel gave Trump an ultimatum—go to SCOTUS or else—his lawyers basically have no other option.
If Trump files the stay application on Monday—keep in mind his lawyers will be before SCOTUS on February 9 pleading for a reversal of the Colorado mandate—the court has quite a few alternatives on how to proceed.
By Julie Kelly
