Donald Trump denied presidential immunity in 2020 election case: Does this hurt his 2024 chances?

Donald Trump has been handed yet another defeat in court. On Tuesday (6 February), a federal appeals court ruled that Trump could not use presidential immunity as a shield against criminal charges over alleged interference in the 2020 presidential election. In their 57-page opinion, the three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit emphatically rejected the former US president’s stance that he could only be prosecuted if he had been convicted in a Senate impeachment trial first. We take a closer look at what the court ruled, and how it impacts Donald Trump, the frontrunner for the Republicans in the 2024 presidential race. What the court ruled? On Tuesday, Judges Karen L Henderson, Florence Y Pan and J Michelle Childs of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rejected Trump’s stance that he is immune from criminal prosecution on charges that he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results because it involved actions he took while president. The case was brought against the former US president by special counsel Jack Smith, charging Trump of reversing his 2020 election defeat by advancing fake electors and obstructing Congress on 6 January 2021. Trump’s legal team had last year filed a motion to dismiss the federal election interference case, arguing that he was immune from criminal prosecution because it involved actions he took while president. In their order, the judges said: “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.” [caption id=“attachment_13699432” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] In their 57-page opinion, the three-judge panel rejected the former US president’s stance that he could only be prosecuted if he had been convicted in a Senate impeachment trial first. File image/Reuters[/caption] “Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct,” the judges added. Furthermore, the judges wrote in their order: “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defences of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.” Want to catch up on all things US election related? Here’s where to go The judges further found that Trump’s actions conflicted with his constitutional duties as president and “violated the constitutionally established design for determining the results of the Presidential election as well as the Electoral Count Act of 1887, neither of which establishes a role for the President in counting and certifying the Electoral College votes”. Trump’s lawyers had earlier argued that the case be tossed out as former president could not face criminal prosecution for carrying out “official acts” unless first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. D John Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, further countered that a ruling against Trump would set a bad precedent for other presidents. “If a president has to look over his shoulder or her shoulder every time he or she has to make a controversial decision…that inevitably dampens the ability of the president,” he was quoted as saying. Trump himself has also reiterated this point on his social media platform that by law presidents were shielded from criminal prosecution for such acts. In one of his recent social media posts, he further wrote that “even events that ‘cross the line’ must fall under total immunity, or it will be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad”. Trump’s legal team had also put forth the 1982 Supreme Court decision involving former President Richard Nixon, in which the court had maintained that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from civil lawsuits related to their official acts. [caption id=“attachment_13699462” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] Trump and his legal team along with supporters have called the prosecution against the former president as a witch hunt. Moreover, Trump has said that he would appeal this ruling. AP[/caption] What next for Trump? The federal appeals court ruling is a setback to Trump as he continues to cement his place in the race for the 2024 presidential election. However, he has options before him. In fact, Steven Cheung, spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, has said that the former president would appeal this order. However, before an appeal to the Supreme Court, Trump could request that the full 11-judge DC Circuit Court of Appeals review and reconsider this case. However, a BBC analyst said that is unlikely to succeed, as six of the eight remaining judges would have to back that decision and obliging such a request is rare. If Trump appeals to the Supreme Court, it would have to decide to review the case or let the court’s decision stand. The court could also decide whether to put the trial on hold. However, if the Supreme Court does hear the case, it guarantees that a trial will take place amid the election campaign. [caption id=“attachment_13699502” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] Apart from the Washington case, Trump is fighting three other prosecutions as he seeks to reclaim the White House. File image/AP[/caption] Will this help or hurt Trump? This matter is one of the four prosecutions Trump is fighting as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Apart from this Washington case, he faces charges in Florida over illegally holding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, which is set for trial in May. He is also charged in Georgia for conspiring to subvert the state’s 2020 election and in New York in connection with hush money payments made to porn actor Stormy Daniels. Some experts believe that the decision has far-reaching effects and will hurt Trump. Mitchell Epner, a New York attorney, told the BBC, “The decision was about as bad as Trump could have expected.” He explained that by rejecting immunity, they have denied him a shield in criminal cases. Moreover, they have removed potential delays to the case. [caption id=“attachment_13699512” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] A supporter of Republican presidential candidate and former US president Donald Trump in Hilton Head, South Carolina. File image/Reuters[/caption] Others have noted that it would also impact his Georgia prosecution. Anthony Michael Kreis of the Georgia State College of Law wrote on X that the ruling gives the judge overseeing the Georgia case a “roadmap” and “a reason to deny a certificate for appealing on presidential immunity” in the Fulton County case. However, not everyone is of the same decision. Some pundits note that the decision is a victory for Trump. This is because the tentative start date of 4 March has been removed from the court’s calendar and it is unknown when it might reappear. Analysts noted that the former US president’s legal team is pushing for delays in his trial dates and this is a good way to achieve it. In fact, Trump has earlier said that his legal strategy is to seek delays. This is so that if he wins the election in November, and the trials haven’t begun, he could then appoint an attorney general who is his point man and would be willing to drop the charges against him. Also read: What if Donald Trump becomes president of the US again? Or as Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told the BBC, “It’s in Trump’s interest to delay the case until after the November election. If he wins control of the White House, a sitting president can’t be prosecuted.” Moreover, if Trump fails to delay the trials, he would prefer to push them as close to election day in a bid to use it as political ammunition — accusing the charges of being political in nature, a claim he has been making repeatedly. With inputs from agencies