U.S. federal court panel rejects Trump argument he's immune from 2020 election prosecution

A federal appeals panel ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump can face trial on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, rejecting the former U.S. president's claims that he is immune from prosecution.

The highly anticipated, unanimous decision from a three-judge panel marks the second time in as many months that judges have spurned Trump's immunity arguments and held that he can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

"We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter," the judges wrote. The panel rejected the argument that presidents in the future would face an increased risk of prosecution.

The trial date in Trump's federal election interference case carries enormous political ramifications, with the Republican primary front-runner hoping to delay it until after the Nov. 5 election. If Trump defeats President Joe Biden, he could presumably try to use his position as head of the executive branch to order a new attorney general to dismiss the federal cases or he potentially could seek a pardon for himself, plunging the country into unprecedented territory.

The appeals court took centre stage in the immunity dispute after the Supreme Court last month said it was at least temporarily staying out of it, rejecting a request from special counsel Jack Smith to take up the matter quickly and issue a speedy ruling.

The legally untested question before the court was whether former presidents can be prosecuted after they leave office for actions taken in the White House related to their official duties.

The Supreme Court on Thursday will be considering another legal issue stemming from a failed bid to cling to power after he lost the 2020 election to Biden. Colorado courts have ruled that Trump is ineligible to appear on state ballots as he engaged in insurrection as defined by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

WATCH l The unusual 'incumbent' presidential campaign:

U.S. election primaries: Even more chaotic than usual? | About That

8 months ago

Duration 15:49

The 2024 U.S. presidential primaries are underway with all their usual chaotic complexities but there's an added twist this year. Andrew Chang breaks down how the primaries usually work, and why 2024 is shaping up to be wildly different.

'Would collapse' separation of powers: judges

Trump's lawyers argued before the federal panel that his post-election efforts, including badgering his vice-presidentMike Pence to refuse to certify the results of the election, all fell within the "outer perimeters" of a president's official acts.

But Smith's team has said that no such immunity exists in the U.S. Constitution or in prior cases and that, in any event, Trump's actions weren't part of his official duties.

Read the appeal panel ruling:

"At bottom, former president Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches," the judges wrote.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, rejected Trump's arguments in a Dec. 1 opinion that said the office of the president "does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass."

Trump's lawyers then appealed to the D.C. appeals court, but Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in first, in hopes of securing a fast and definitive ruling and preserving the March 4 trial date. The high court declined the request, leaving the matter with the appeals court.

Chutkan last week postponed the March 4 date.

The case was argued before Judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs, appointees of Biden, a Democrat, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was named to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican.

Plans to appeal

A Trump spokesperson said the candidate would appeal the ruling.

The judges gave Trump until Feb.12 to ask the Supreme Court to pause the ruling.

It is not guaranteed the Supreme Court judges would take up the case before their current term ends in June, or at all. He could also ask the entire appeals court to hear the argument.

The immunity question could potentially affect a 13-count indictment Trump faces in Georgia for trying to reverse his 2020 loss to Biden in that state.

Trump's potential presidential immunity does not come into play for a scheduled May 20 trial on allegations he unlawfully retained government documents after leaving the presidency in early 2021. But the pace of pre-trial rulings has called into question whether that start date will be kept.

On March 25, he faces a New York trial date on charges he falsified business records to cover up hush-money payments over alleged extramarital affairs he didn't want to become public knowledge during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The legal peril has come with hefty costs for Trump and his supporters, according to federal election campaign spending data.

Trump is the first president to face criminal indictments.

Bill Clinton, in his final days in office, struck a deal that guaranteed he wouldn't face prosecution, for giving false testimony under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton paid a fine and had his law licence suspended.