Appeals court firmly denies Trump’s ‘presidential immunity’ claims over January 6 actions

The D.C. court's opinion was stark in its rejection of Trump's claims.


A federal appeals court has unequivocally dismissed former President Donald Trump’s claims that his alleged “presidential immunity” absolves him of any wrongdoing related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack and his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. This ruling upholds the initial judgment by federal Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the pre-trial proceedings of the case against Trump. The case accuses the former president of attempting to defraud the U.S. by engaging in activities to subvert the election results.

Trump’s legal team had contended that the trial should be dismissed due to his presidential immunity, arguing that he was merely performing his duties as president and should not be held accountable after leaving office. This appeal was heard in early January by a three-judge panel at the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which has now issued a unanimous decision affirming Judge Chutkan’s original ruling.

The D.C. court’s opinion was stark in its rejection of Trump’s claims. “Former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the court stated. The judges further clarified that any executive immunity Trump might have enjoyed as president no longer protects him against prosecution. The court’s ruling emphasized that granting Trump the immunity he sought would be unprecedented and incompatible with established legal precedents.

During the appellate court hearing in January, Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, made the astonishing assertion that such immunity could extend even to presidential orders for political assassinations, arguing that impeachment was the sole remedy for presidential misconduct. The appellate court firmly refuted these arguments, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Nixon, which stressed the importance of judicial scrutiny over presidential actions.

The appellate court also delved into Trump’s actions surrounding the January 6 events, suggesting that, if proven, they constituted “an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government.” The court pointed out that Trump allegedly overstepped his bounds by interfering in the Electoral College vote counting and certification process, a function in which the president traditionally has no role.

As Trump considers appealing the ruling to a higher court, legal experts have weighed in on the decision’s significance. Boston University School of Law Professor Jed Shugerman described the appellate court’s opinion as thorough and well-constructed, potentially diminishing the likelihood of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Trump’s appeal. “I’ve skimmed the DC Circuit opinion rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments. Yes, they took their time, but it was worth it,” Shugerman noted on social media.

In the broader context of public opinion, a CNN/SSRS poll revealed that nearly two-thirds of U.S. voters are eager for a verdict in Trump’s trial before the 2024 election. This sentiment reflects widespread concerns about the implications of Trump’s actions for democratic processes and the rule of law. As the legal battle continues, the court’s firm stance against presidential impunity in criminal matters sets a pivotal precedent for future cases involving high-level officials.

“The court’s decision sends a clear message that no individual, regardless of their position, is above the law,” said former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal. “This ruling not only upholds the fundamental principles of justice and accountability but also reaffirms the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power.”


If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.