Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

HomeInternationalTrump to return to federal court as judges hear arguments on whether...

popular

Trump to return to federal court as judges hear arguments on whether he is immune from prosecution

WASHINGTON โ€“

With Donald Trump present for the first time in months, federal appeals court judges in Washington expressed deep skepticism Tuesday that the former U.S. president was immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The panel of three judges, two of whom were appointed by U.S. President Joe Biden, also questioned whether they had jurisdiction to consider the appeal at this point in the case, raising the prospect that Trumpโ€™s effort could be dismissed.

The information you need to know, sent directly to you: Download the CTV News App

During lengthy arguments, the judges repeatedly pressed Trumpโ€™s lawyer to defend claims that Trump was shielded from criminal charges for acts that he says fell within his official duties as president. That argument was rejected last month by a lower-court judge overseeing the case against Trump, and the appeals judges suggested through their questions that they, too, were dubious that the Founding Fathers envisioned absolute immunity for presidents after they leave office.

"I think itโ€™s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law," said Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of former U.S. President George H.W. Bush.

The outcome carries enormous ramifications both for the landmark criminal case against Trump and for the broader, and legally untested, question of whether an ex-president can be prosecuted for acts committed in the White House. It will also likely set the stage for further appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court, which last month declined a request to weigh but could still get involved later.

A swift decision is crucial for special counsel Jack Smith and his team, who are eager to get the case โ€” now paused pending the appeal โ€” to trial before the November election. But Trumpโ€™s lawyers, in addition to seeking to get the case dismissed, are hoping to benefit from a protracted appeals process that could delay the trial well past its scheduled March 4 start date, including until potentially after the election.

Underscoring the importance to both sides, Trump, the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner, attended Tuesdayโ€™s arguments even though the Iowa caucuses are just one week away and despite the fact that thereโ€™s no requirement that defendants appear in person for such proceedings.

In his first court appearance in Washington โ€” one of four cities where he faces criminal prosecutions โ€” since his arraignment in August, Trump sat at the defence table, watching intently and occasionally taking notes and speaking with his lawyers.

Heโ€™s already signalling that he could use the appearance to portray himself as the victim of a politicized justice system. Though thereโ€™s no evidence Biden has had any influence on the case, Trumpโ€™s argument could resonate with Republican voters in Iowa as they prepare to launch the presidential nomination process.

On his way to court on Tuesday, he said in a fundraising email that he was going "to fight for my rights as Crooked Joe and his Special Counsel of "war crimes prosecutors" are attempting to strip them from me,."

Former presidents enjoy broad immunity from lawsuits for actions taken as part of their official White House duties. But because no former president before Trump has ever been indicted, courts have never before addressed whether that protection extends to criminal prosecution.

Trumpโ€™s lawyers insist that it does, arguing that courts have no authority to scrutinize a presidentโ€™s official acts and that the prosecution of their client represents a dramatic departure from more than two centuries of American history that would open the door to future "politically motivated" cases. They filed a similar motion on Monday in another criminal case against Trump in Georgia.

"To authorize the prosecution of a president for official acts would open a Pandoraโ€™s box from which this nation may never recover," said D. John Sauer, a lawyer for Trump, asserting that, under the governmentโ€™s theory, presidents could be prosecuted for giving Congress "false information" to enter war or for authorizing drone strikes targeting U.S. citizens abroad.

He later added: "If a president has to look over his shoulder or her shoulder every time he or she has to make a controversial decision and wonder if โ€˜after I leave office, am I going to jail for this when my political opponents take power?โ€™ that inevitably dampens the ability of the president."

But the judges were skeptical about those arguments. When Sauer asserted that under the Constitution, Trump could not be prosecuted for conduct for which he had been impeached and acquitted before Congress, Judge Florence Pan suggested that that argument actually undermined his absolute immunity claim because he was conceding situations in which an exโ€“president could be charged.

"Once you concede that presidents can be prosecuted under some circumstances, your separation of powers argument falls away," Pan said.

Asides from the merits of the arguments, the judges jumped right into questioning Trumpโ€™s lawyer over whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal at this time. Sauer said presidential immunity is clearly a claim that is meant to be reviewed before trial. Smithโ€™s team also said that it wants the court to decide the case now.

Smithโ€™s team maintains that presidents are not entitled to absolute immunity and that, in any event, the acts Trump is alleged in the indictment to have taken โ€” including scheming to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Biden and pressing his vice president, Mike Pence, to reject the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021 โ€” fall far outside a presidentโ€™s official job duties.

"The president has a unique constitutional role but he is not above the law. Separation of powers principles, constitutional text, history, precedent and immunity doctrines all point to the conclusion that a former president enjoys no immunity from prosecution," prosecutor James Pearce said, adding that a case in which a former president is alleged to have sought to overturn an election "is not the place to recognize some novel form of immunity."

When Henderson asked how the court could write its opinion in a way that doesnโ€™t open the "floodgates" of investigations against ex-presidents, Pearce said he did not anticipate "a sea change of vindictive tit-for-tat prosecutions in the future." He called the allegations against Trump were fundamentally unprecedented.

"Never before has there been allegations that a sitting president has, with private individuals and using the levers of power, sought to fundamentally subvert the democratic republic and the electoral system," he said. "And frankly, if that kind of fact pattern arises again, I think it would be awfully scary if there werenโ€™t some sort of mechanism by which to reach that criminally."

Itโ€™s not clear how quickly the panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals from the D.C. Circuit will rule, though it has signalled that it intends to work fast.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected the immunity arguments, ruling on Dec. 1 that the office of the presidency does not confer a "โ€™get-out-of-jail-free pass."โ€™ Trumpโ€™s lawyers appealed that decision, but Smithโ€™s team, determined to keep the case on schedule, sought to leapfrog the appeals court by asking the Supreme Court to fast-track the immunity question. The justices declined to get involved.

The appeal is vital to a broader Trump strategy of trying to postpone the case until after the November election, when a victory could empower him to order the Justice Department to abandon the prosecution or even to seek a pardon for himself. He faces three other criminal cases, in state and federal court, though the Washington case is scheduled for trial first.

โ€”โ€”

Richer reported from Boston.

More news