Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has petitioned the Supreme Court for a stay on a lower court decision, as part of their broader appeal against one of the federal criminal cases against him.
They argue that the case raises a groundbreaking question of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.
The defense team, in a document exceeding 100 pages, urged the Supreme Court to halt the lower court proceedings while the appeal is under consideration. They assert that without such immunity, the Presidency as an institution could be fundamentally altered. “Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the Presidency as we know it will cease to exist,” they stated in their filing.
The prosecutors, however, are pressing for the district court proceedings to continue while the former President seeks avenues of appeal. The defense’s appeal reads: “President Trump’s claim that Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts presents a novel, complex, and momentous question that warrants careful consideration on appeal.”
The lawyers contend that this is a critical area of law not yet definitively addressed by the Supreme Court, thus justifying the high court’s review. They warn that if the prosecution of a sitting President is upheld, it could set a dangerous precedent leading to repeated prosecutions and destructive cycles of recrimination. They argue that this will impair Presidential decision-making, compromise the President’s independence, and cloud the President’s ability to discharge his duties impartially and fearlessly.
Trump was charged last year with four counts of conspiracy and obstruction relating to his actions on January 6, 2021. He entered a plea of not guilty and subsequently filed four motions to dismiss the case. The first of these motions invoked presidential immunity as a defense. This motion was rejected by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, prompting Trump to take the case to the appeals court.
The prosecution moved swiftly in response, seeking to expedite the appeal process with the aim of trying the case within the current term, prior to the general elections. Following the appeal, the defense requested an expedited process from the appeals court and petitioned the Supreme Court to consider the issue of presidential immunity.
In January, a three-judge panel heard arguments, and within a month, they rejected Trump’s invocation of presidential immunity. Their reasoning was that while Presidents might be sued personally for potentially unpopular policies, thereby diminishing the stature of the Presidency, there is no such immunity for Presidents facing criminal prosecutions. This places Trump’s defense in uncharted legal territory.
On February 6, a federal appeals court panel dismissed Trump’s defense, asserting that Presidents can face penalties for committing federal crimes, with impeachment being just one possible recourse. They pointed to President Nixon’s pardon as evidence that Presidents are not absolutely immune in relation to criminal matters. This ruling upheld the district court’s decision that Presidents do not have immunity from criminal prosecution, regardless of whether the acts in question were official or not.
