Donald Trump’s legal issues have taken the news by storm in recent months. The front-runner for the Republican party in the 2024 Presidential Race has faced multiple charges on varying subjects in recent months, causing questions about presidential immunity to loom.
Trump appeared in court, along with his lawyers, to argue that he is immune from criminal prosecution. In simple terms, Trump is being prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 election. This trial took place in front of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
John Sauer, one of Trump’s lawyers, has argued that Trump’s actions in the election were part of his presidential duties. Additional remarks from the defendant’s argument included the theory that a president must be criminally charged by the Senate first. Trump was acquitted by the Senate in February of 2021.
“If a president has to look over his shoulder or her shoulder every time he or she has to make a controversial decision or after I leave office, if I go into jail for this, when my political opponents take power, that inevitably dampens the ability of the president,” Sauer argued in court.
Trump’s lawyers have also argued that because he was the president at the time, he should be granted certain immunities from being prosecuted. The immunity theory in general terms argues that the president must make important decisions that will affect the entire country. Having the added barrier of worrying about legal issues produces issues over executive performance — therefore, the theory argues, the president should be granted certain legal immunities to properly perform his or her duty.
The prosecution has used dramatic examples to prove a point. Prosecution has questioned the extent to which presidential immunity can be used.
“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?” Judge Pan asked during the hearing.
The prosecution has argued that if the court rules in favor of Trump, a floodgate of future legal issues will follow, including severe criminal offenses. Prosecutors, along with other Americans, grow fearful of the implication of the ruling in favor of Trump. Potentially dangerous acts by a future President could be pardoned under this precedent.
An old legal ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) from 1982 touches on this subject. In Nixon v Fitzgerald, Nixon, at the time a former president, was sued by Arthur Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald lost his position as an airman for the Air Force. The prosecution claimed that he lost his position in part due to Fitzergerald’s Congressional testimony that was seen as a retaliation.
The court ruled in favor of Nixon at a 5 to 4 vote, arguing that the president has immunity from being sued for money for his executive conduct. The court ruled that a President has legal immunity from civil damages, whereas a president is not immune from criminal charges. The primary holding of the case states that a president has immunity from liability for civil damages arising from conduct while in office.
The District of Columbia Circuit is likely setting up for Trump to face the SCOTUS, as a matter this important will set a pivotal future precedent for the executive branch. The United States Supreme Court will likely weigh in on this issue before the election this fall.
In similar news, Maine and Colorado have banned Trump from the 2024 ballot. Being the current leader of the Republican candidates, this decision may have pivotal results. In 2020, President Joe Biden won Colorado by a mere 55%. The last time that Colorado voted Republican was in 2004, and it’s unlikely that it will swing to Republican this election.
However, Maine is more devastating for Trump. Maine has voted Democrat in the last eight elections, but the race was close in 2016. Hilary Clinton prevailed by a mere 3 percent over Trump. Although Colorado and Maine are likely to go for a Democrat this election, it still puts Trump at a disadvantage.