Why did a federal court shoot down Trump's immunity excuse?

Donald Trump does not enjoy the "complete and total" immunity he has often claimed is his right as a former president, a panel of three appellate court judges ruled on Tuesday. The decision is a significant blow to Trump's effort to avoid criminal prosecution for allegedly subverting the results of his 2020 election loss. In their 57-page decision, all three judges affirmed Judge Tanya Chutkan's earlier ruling against Trump's blanket immunity claims, concluding that "any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."

For months, Trump and his legal team have argued that the historic election interference charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith should be rejected entirely on the grounds that, as a former president, he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken while in office. Late last year, Smith attempted unsuccessfully to expedite the process by requesting the Supreme Court rule on Trump's immunity claims immediately, thereby avoiding further delays to the upcoming trial. Beyond rejecting the merits of Smith's charges themselves, Trump is also widely seen as wanting to push the trial date as far back as possible, including past the upcoming presidential elections in November. After that, should he win, he could simply absolve himself entirely.

While Tuesday's appellate ruling is a major legal setback for Trump's immunity argument, it is hardly the end of the road for the former president. Despite the decisive finality in the decision's tone and reasoning, neither Smith nor Trump is out of the woods just yet.  

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What did the commentators say?

Trump's immunity argument was always a legal "long-shot," but by "eviscerating his assertion" in their ruling the three-judge appellate panel "portrayed his position as not only wrong on the law but also repellent," said The New York Times. That the panel directly addressed Smith's specific allegations against Trump was "especially notable" because the same appellate court had previously "avoided weighing in on Trump's Jan. 6 actions in appeals of lawsuits against him," CNN said. Conservative legal scholar (and enthusiastic Trump foil) George Conway celebrated the ruling as "airtight," saying in The Atlantic that courts rarely issue decisions "of this quality in such a short period of time." Of the thousands of rulings he's read over the course of his career, "few have been as good as this one." 

While Trump's claims of total immunity are "obviously wrong," this ruling "has gone overboard in the other direction," countered The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board. Speaking with Fox News, conservative legal scholar Jonathan Turley said Trump's claim was "sweeping and unprecedented" and in that context, it was "not surprising that this panel rejected it."

What next? 

Insisting that the former president "respectfully disagrees with the D.C. Circuit's decision," Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement that Trump would appeal the ruling to "safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution." While the campaign did not expand on what that appeal would look like, Trump has several options — and little time. In its decision, the appellate court gave Trump's legal team until Feb. 12 to petition the Supreme Court to pause the criminal case while they consider taking up his appeal. This would essentially "stop the clock" while Trump's attorneys craft a more focused response to this week's ruling, said CNN. 

Trump can also ask for an "en banc" ruling from the full D.C. Circuit court, although "that sort of review is rare," with actual overturned decisions "even rarer still," said The Daily Beast. Moreover, the panel's ruling is such that the case is essentially only paused if Trump appeals directly to SCOTUS, not the full D.C. Circuit. In his goal to delay his trial, "one tactic has been blunted," The Washington Post said. 

While a SCOTUS ruling in his favor is Trump's "dream scenario," the next best thing would be if the high court takes his case "without any accelerated time frame," Politico said. But, cautioned The Daily Beast, the fact that there seem few concrete legal questions that need answering here indicates "this is just not a case for the Supreme Court."