Perhaps the single greatest risk that former President Donald Trump’s federal criminal trial in Washington would be delayed for years or even dismissed was his argument that he enjoys presidential immunity for his actions relating to Jan. 6. That risk was because the questions raised by this novel application of the defense had never been resolved by the courts. But on Friday, federal courts in Washington, D.C., dealt a devastating one-two punch to Trump’s position. These decisions carry major implications for all manner of litigation involving presidents — and signify that the March criminal trial is likely to proceed as scheduled.
The first bombshell came Friday morning, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Trump’s attempt to dismiss three civil cases brought against him regarding his actions on Jan. 6. In Blassingame v. Trump, Capitol Police officers and members of Congress present at the Capitol that day sued Trump for alleged harms they suffered as a result of what occurred. Trump had moved to dismiss the lawsuits on the basis of presidential immunity.
Chutkan’s landmark ruling was the first time a court had ever been presented with the question of presidential criminal immunity.
But the D.C. Circuit found that presidential immunity only applies to official acts, and that Trump’s conduct relating to Jan. 6 was fundamentally political activity to hang onto his office. Those who allege directly and physical harm from the consequences of Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 can now hold him accountable for damages in court.
Later that day, District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a sweeping and powerful opinion rejecting absolute presidential immunity in the criminal case. She ruled that “former Presidents do not possess absolute federal criminal immunity for any acts committed while in office,” and thus that Trump “may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any…
Read the full article here