Former President Donald Trump's claim of "absolute immunity" from prosecution faces a critical test in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This case not only holds the potential to establish constitutional precedent but also has significant implications for the upcoming 2024 election.
Trump argues that his post-election actions and those on January 6, 2021, were within his official duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He contends that this shields him from criminal liability, emphasizing his acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial on charges of "incitement of insurrection."
Special counsel Jack Smith counters, asserting that Trump's claims "threaten to undermine democracy." Legal experts anticipate that the case, likely to reach the Supreme Court, will carve out new legal ground, navigating uncharted territory surrounding "presidential immunity."
**Constitutional Perspectives on 'Presidential Immunity'**
Constitutional scholars note that there is no explicit mention of immunity in the Constitution. While some framers, including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, hinted at potential immunity during a president's term, they suggested that such protections might not extend beyond their time in office.
A 2000 Department of Justice memo referenced these framers' views, asserting that a former president could be indicted and tried for offenses previously acquitted in an impeachment trial. Smith's team echoes this perspective, arguing that Trump's immunity claim could enable criminal acts to maintain office, contrary to the Founders' intentions.
**Legal Precedents and Rejections**
Trump's attempts to claim immunity in various legal challenges since leaving office have faced consistent rejection. In the federal election interference case, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed Trump's motion for immunity, emphasizing that presidential privileges do not grant a lifelong shield from prosecution.
Similar rejections occurred in a Jan. 6-related civil suit and a defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll. Courts ruled that Trump is not entitled to absolute immunity in these instances.
**Expert Opinions on Trump's Arguments**
Legal experts, including former Trump White House attorney Ty Cobb and former impeachment special counsel Norman Eisen, criticize Trump's assertion of "absolute immunity." Eisen deems the idea "abhorrent to American law," emphasizing that no one is above the law in the American system.
University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq questions the strength of Trump's immunity arguments, particularly regarding the impeachment clause and double jeopardy. He highlights Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's assertion that impeachment is not the final forum for justice.
Attorney Stanley Brand suggests Trump may find success arguing that some of his conduct falls within the "outer perimeter" of official duties. However, experts unanimously stress the need for a timely resolution before the November election, acknowledging the complexity and uniqueness of the case.
The issue's critical timing, with a trial start date of March 4, adds complexity. Despite efforts to fast-track the case, the Supreme Court declined expedited review, underscoring the unprecedented nature of this legal battle.