In a pronounced step against the idea that a former president might enjoy blanket immunity, the issue remains that the top official cannot sidestep criminal accountability. This week a unanimous panel of three federal appeals court judges in Washington laid out the road ahead: the former president is set to confront a criminal trial related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The case stands alongside another brought by special prosecutor Jack Smith and forms part of a broader slate of legal proceedings surrounding the former commander in chief.
Even with ongoing legal procedures and the possibility of appeals, the 57-page ruling marks a pivotal moment. It confirms a fundamental principle that people who have held the Oval Office can be held to account in the criminal justice system for actions taken while in office. Historically, a former president has not faced impeachment for post-office conduct, and this development signals a new precedent in American governance and accountability. Source: Reuters.
“Citizen Trump”
In this criminal matter, the former president is treated as a regular defendant rather than shielded by immunity tied to his time in office. The court acknowledges that any immunity that might have protected him during his presidency does not extend to current charges. This framing places Trump in a position similar to any other defendant facing a criminal case, emphasizing that constitutional protections do not automatically shield ongoing prosecutions. Source: Reuters.
At the January hearing, the judges—two appointed during the Biden administration and one appointed during the early years of the Bush family—expressed skepticism about sweeping immunity claims. They questioned the arguments offered by Trump’s lawyers and pressed for clarity on the limits of executive privilege and presidential immunity in situations where post-election actions are alleged. One of the defense points suggested that if Trump had ordered such a hypothetical operation against a political rival, criminal accountability could hinge on impeachment, a line of argument that the court did not endorse. Source: Reuters.
The trial, which is overseen by Judge Tanya Chutkan, had been scheduled to begin on March 4, aligning with a major political event, but a recent scheduling decision pushed the start date back. The delay keeps the litigation in limbo for a time, even as the legal process presses forward and the wider public watches the implications for presidential accountability. Source: Reuters.