The federal appeals court on Friday again decided not to dismiss a civil case that seeks to hold former President Donald Trump accountable for the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021 – the latest in a series of court rulings rejecting Trump’s claim that he has “presidential immunity” from legal consequences, as the debate is likely to head to the Supreme Court soon.
Key Facts
A panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a bid to dismiss a civil case filed against Trump and some of his allies by Capitol police officers who were at the Capitol on January 6, which seeks to hold the former president accountable for the injuries they sustained during the riots.
Trump sought to dismiss the case and other similar lawsuits against him, claiming he has “presidential immunity” from any legal liability, as his actions to overturn the 2020 election and speaking to his supporters before the events of January 6 occurred during his presidency.
The Supreme Court may ultimately decide the issue of immunity as part of a separate criminal case against Trump, as the Justice Department requested that it issue a quick ruling on the matter earlier this month, but the court declined, meaning it must first go through a lower court.
What to Watch For
The police officers suing Trump are seeking a detailed ruling that Trump’s actions violated federal law, as well as an unspecified amount in damages. With the appeals court’s ruling on Friday, the case against Trump will continue in the logical court, and it is unclear how soon it might go to trial. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is also separately considering whether Trump has immunity from criminal charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that he does not.
The Capitol police case is part of a series of civil lawsuits filed in the months following the January 6 events seeking to hold Trump accountable for his role in inciting the insurrection, which was followed by criminal charges against Trump, supported by federal and state prosecutors, for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump often relies on claims of “presidential immunity” to escape his legal troubles, even though the scope of that immunity remains an open legal question. The Justice Department has long asserted that criminal charges cannot be brought against presidents while they are in office – stating in a memo that it “would unduly impair the functioning of the executive branch,” and the Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that presidents cannot be held liable in civil cases for actions taken as part of their official duties. (In Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that lawsuits can be filed against presidents in civil courts for actions taken before they became president.)
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of whether former presidents are exempt from criminal charges; however, the ruling in Nixon v. Fitzgerald pertains only to official acts the president performed while in office. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s claims that his presence in the Oval Office could shield him from a grand jury subpoena for his tax returns. “No citizen, not even the president, is above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the ruling.
What
We Don’t Know
If the Supreme Court will ultimately determine the issue of Trump’s presidential immunity. The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to address the question of whether Trump should be immune from the criminal charges against him in the federal election-related criminal case – and wanted the justices to make a decision quickly and not wait for the appeals court to issue its ruling first – but the Supreme Court declined, meaning that the case will go first to the appeals court. Once that court issues its ruling, the Supreme Court is generally expected to take up the matter, and may issue a landmark decision on whether former presidents are immune from criminal charges. It is unclear when this ruling might be issued – and how much the court’s deliberations could delay the scheduled trial date in March 2024.
Looking Ahead
Trump can be prosecuted for inciting a riot on January 6, according to the appeals court ruling. The case against Trump will continue in logical court, and it is unclear when it may go to trial. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is also separately considering whether Trump has immunity from the criminal charges against him for attempting to change the results of the 2020 election, after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that he does not. The court will hear arguments in this dispute on January 9.
The Capitol Police case is part of a series of civil suits filed in the months following the events of January 6 seeking to hold Trump accountable for his role in inciting the insurrection, followed by criminal charges supported by federal and state prosecutors against Trump for his attempts to change the results of the 2020 election. Trump often relies on claims of “presidential immunity” to avoid his legal problems, although the scope of that immunity is still an open legal question. The Justice Department has long maintained that criminal charges cannot be brought against presidents while they are in office – stating in a memo that it “would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch,” and the Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that presidents cannot be held accountable in civil cases for acts undertaken as part of their official duties. (In Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that lawsuits can be filed against presidents in civil courts for actions taken before they became presidents.)
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the question of whether former presidents are immune from criminal charges; however, the ruling in Nixon v. Fitzgerald pertains only to official acts performed by the president while in office. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s claims that his presence in the Oval Office could exempt him from being subpoenaed by a grand jury for his tax returns. “No citizen, not even the president, is above the common duty to provide evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the ruling.
Looking Ahead
It is unknown whether the Supreme Court will ultimately determine the issue of Trump’s presidential immunity. The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to address the question of whether Trump should be immune from the criminal charges against him in the federal election-related criminal case – and wanted the justices to make a decision quickly and not wait for the appeals court to issue its ruling first – but the Supreme Court declined, meaning that the case will go first to the appeals court. Once that court issues its ruling, the Supreme Court is generally expected to take up the matter, and may issue a landmark decision on whether former presidents are immune from criminal charges. It is unclear when this ruling might be issued – and how much the court’s deliberations could delay the scheduled trial date in March 2024.
“`css
}@media screen and (max-width: 480px) {
.lwrp.link-whisper-related-posts{
}
.lwrp .lwrp-title{
}.lwrp .lwrp-description{
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-multi-container{
flex-direction: column;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-multi-container ul.lwrp-list{
margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
padding-top: 0px;
padding-bottom: 0px;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-double,
.lwrp .lwrp-list-triple{
width: 100%;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container{
justify-content: initial;
flex-direction: column;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container .lwrp-list-item{
width: 100%;
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item:not(.lwrp-no-posts-message-item){
“`
}
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-link .lwrp-list-link-title-text,
.lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-no-posts-message{
};
}
Leave a Reply