Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth and Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson discuss the DC Circuit Court rejecting Trump's claims of presidential immunity and a possible new path for reasserting abortion rights. They explore the implications of the court order, timing and potential trial date in the federal election case, analysis of presidential immunity arguments in federal and state criminal cases, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on Medicaid funds for abortions, and the debate between originalism and the living constitution.
The DC Circuit Court unanimously rejected Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity from federal prosecution, stating that a former president is not above the law.
The court used Trump's own words and positions against him to expose the inconsistency of his claims, emphasizing that a former president is not immune from prosecution for acts committed while in office that violated criminal laws.
Deep dives
The DC Court of Appeals rejects Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution
The DC Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that former President Trump cannot claim immunity from criminal prosecution. The court found that the office of the presidency does not protect him from standing trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election. The judges cited the Constitution, federal statutes, and history as the basis for their decision, stating that a former president is not above the law. They addressed and rejected all of Trump's arguments for immunity, including his claim that the separation of powers doctrine immunizes him. The court also dismissed the argument that criminal prosecutions would chill presidential actions.
The court used Trump's own words against him
The judges repeatedly referenced statements made by Trump and his lawyers during his impeachment trial to expose the inconsistency of his claims. They highlighted Trump's position that criminal prosecution would be a proper remedy during the impeachment proceedings, contradicting his current argument for immunity. The court used Trump's words and positions against him to emphasize that a former president is not immune from prosecution for acts committed while in office that violated criminal laws. They emphasized that presidential actions have been subject to judicial review in the past.
The court rejects the argument that official acts are immune
The court categorically rejected the claim that official acts are immune from criminal prosecution. They stated that a former president is not entitled to immunity even for official acts that were in violation of the law. The court acknowledged Trump's argument about separation of powers but found no barrier to exercising oversight through the adjudication of criminal laws for acts committed by a former president while in office. They pointed out that the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not allow him to violate criminal laws.
Policy considerations and precedents support prosecution
The court addressed policy considerations raised by Trump, such as the risk of chilling presidential actions and routine indictments of former presidents. They concluded that historical precedent and the absence of immunity for former presidents in the past do not support recognizing such immunity now. The court pointed to examples like former President Ford pardoning former President Nixon and former President Clinton entering into an agreement to settle the prospect of future criminal prosecution. They emphasized that the prospect of criminal prosecution has not hindered presidents from carrying out their duties.
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law, discusses the DC Circuit Court rejecting Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity from federal prosecution. Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, discusses a possible new path for reasserting abortion rights. June Grasso hosts.