The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit heard oral arguments this week surrounding the presidential immunity claim put forward by former President Donald Trump. Trump has argued that his position as former president shields him from criminal liability in a case brought against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith. This case alleges that Trump interfered with the 2020 US presidential election. Federal prosecutors on Smith’s team, however, have firmly opposed Trump’s claims of immunity, a stance agreed upon by District Judge Tanya Chutkan at a lower court level.
The argument supporting Trump’s immunity was led by his attorney, John Sauer, in the DC Circuit courtroom. Trump was present, though not permitted to speak. Representing the government’s viewpoint was James Pearce, with Smith also present.
The onset of court arguments was predicated on the standing of the court to hear the issue given the appeal by Trump of Judge Chutkan’s ruling from December 1, 2023, rejecting his claim of presidential immunity. This appeal is classified as an interlocutory appeal. With the trial court proceedings on hold awaiting a decision from the DC Circuit, Trump is expected to appeal any unfavorable DC Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court, which could further delay the trial court proceedings.
Pushing for presidential immunity, Sauer contended that Trump’s actions leading up to the 2020 US presidential election were carried out in his official capacity as president of the US. Sauer referred to the Nixon v. Fitzgerald case, and argued that Trump has already been tried on charges related to the 2020 election since he was impeached – however, he was not convicted – in Congress. Sauer asserted that any further charges relating to the same affairs would result in double jeopardy.
Yet the judges posed questions that challenged Sauer’s assertions, stressing over the ability of the judiciary to review the acts of the executive. They also questioned the exclusive reliance on impeachment proceedings as the guard against political prosecutions, especially when they cover only a limited set of criminal offenses.
On behalf of the US government, Pearce contradicted Trump’s claim of presidential immunity. He referenced an understanding since the Nixon administration that presidents are subject to criminal prosecution. Regarding the concerns of potentially politically-motivated prosecutions, Pearce highlighted that prior findings by Department of Justice officials – such as Special Counsel Robert Mueller – were made in consideration of a sitting president, not a former one.
The court has since taken the matter under advisement, with a decision expected shortly. The court has been operating on an expedited schedule at the request of Smith. Following the hearing, Trump told reporters, “I feel that as a president, you have to have immunity, very simple. I did nothing wrong.”