Follow this authorRuth Marcus's opinions
Follow
But special counsel Jack Smith, in asking the justices last December to leapfrog the appeals court and take the case immediately, argued that it “Involves a paradigmatic issue of imperative public importance: the amenability to criminal prosecution of a former President of the United States for conduct undertaken during his presidency.” With both prosecution and defense acknowledging the importance of Supreme Court review, it may be that the justices will take this up. If so, that should be on an expedited basis that has the case argued and decided not just this term, but as swiftly as possible.
The strength of the appeals court’s ruling — echoing the conclusions of the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan — should make that task easier. It was no surprise that Trump lost, but he lost resoundingly, without judicial hedging, concurrence or dissent. Judge Karen L. Henderson, a George H.W. Bush nominee, joined two Biden appointees, Judges Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs, in ruling against him, and they sent a tacit message of solidarity by issuing the decision per curiam — for the court — without a single, identified author.
Advertisement
On the merits, the panel didn’t engage in nitpicking about whether the actions at the center of Trump’s indictment were official in nature or stemmed from his simultaneous role as a presidential candidate that might have sent the case back to Chutkan for further review. Rather, Trump lost, flat out — and correctly so.
As the appeals court has weighed his case, Trump has been on a social media tirade about the supposedly dire implications for future presidents of denying him immunity from prosecution. Without that protection, Trump asserts, presidents in office will be forever looking over their shoulders, retaliated against by victorious rivals, who will deploy prosecutors to go after opponents. “A president of the United States must have full immunity, without which it would be impossible for him/her to properly function,” Trump posted on Truth Social last month.
On that score, the opinion offers a convincing refutation. “We cannot presume that a President will be unduly cowed by the prospect of post-Presidency criminal liability any more than a juror would be influenced by the prospect of post-deliberation criminal liability, or an executive aide would be quieted by the prospect of the disclosure of communications in a criminal prosecution,” the panel said. “Moreover, past Presidents have understood themselves to be subject to impeachment and criminal liability, at least under certain circumstances, so the possibility of chilling executive action is already in effect.”
Advertisement
Rather, the court noted, “Instead of inhibiting the President’s lawful discretionary action, the prospect of federal criminal liability might serve as a structural benefit to deter possible abuses of power and criminal behavior.” Indeed, it said, “It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity.”
Impunity. That’s what Trump has been seeking for years. He may yet succeed, but Tuesday’s ruling was a blow for accountability and the rule of law — and against the Trumpian proposition that, as the court said, “the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”
Share Comments
Popular opinions articles
HAND CURATED
- Opinion|The antislavery giant at the center of the Trump disqualification caseFebruary 5, 2024Opinion|The antislavery giant at the center of the Trump disqualification caseFebruary 5, 2024
- Opinion|Nextdoor has gotten way out of handFebruary 5, 2024Opinion|Nextdoor has gotten way out of handFebruary 5, 2024
- Opinion|Why I changed my mind and think Trump should be thrown off the ballotFebruary 4, 2024Opinion|Why I changed my mind and think Trump should be thrown off the ballotFebruary 4, 2024
View 3 more stories Sign up
The appeals court ruling rejecting Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from prosecution for his official acts could not be a more decisive or staggering loss for the probable GOP nominee. It’s highly unfortunate that the bipartisan panel took nearly a month to produce its opinion, but the force of its unanimous conclusion — combined with its tight deadline for Trump to seek an appeal — helps ease some of the damage caused by that delay. Now the pressure is on the Supreme Court to act swiftly on Trump’s promised request for high court review.
Trump never had a real shot at succeeding on his audacious assertion of immunity from accusations of election interference. No previous president facing the prospect of criminal proceedings has made such an argument — not Richard M. Nixon accepting a pardon from Gerald Ford; not Bill Clinton settling with the Independent Counsel Robert Ray by agreeing to pay a penalty and surrender his law license. This was — and more to the point, it remains — a delaying tactic, an effort to postpone any consideration of criminal charges against him until the election is over.
In that sense, the most important thing that happened Tuesday was not contained within the 57-page opinion itself, but in an accompanying order designed to let pretrial proceedings, lately on hold during the immunity appeal, resume as quickly as possible. The order gave Trump only until Monday to start the process of seeking Supreme Court review if he wants to keep the case frozen. (And even if Trump takes the interim step of asking the full appeals court to reconsider the decision, the order said, that would not prevent trial preparations from proceeding unless — as seems unlikely with a unanimous opinion — the full appeals court agrees to take up the case.)
Bottom line: the clock is once again ticking for Trump, although the original March 4 trial date is off the table. Depending on what the Supreme Court does, and how quickly it does it, any trial will wait for at least two months and very possibly longer. The justices could refuse to grant Trump’s request for review or summarily affirm the appeals court.
But special counsel Jack Smith, in asking the justices last December to leapfrog the appeals court and take the case immediately, argued that it “Involves a paradigmatic issue of imperative public importance: the amenability to criminal prosecution of a former President of the United States for conduct undertaken during his presidency.” With both prosecution and defense acknowledging the importance of Supreme Court review, it may be that the justices will take this up. If so, that should be on an expedited basis that has the case argued and decided not just this term, but as swiftly as possible.
The strength of the appeals court’s ruling — echoing the conclusions of the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan — should make that task easier. It was no surprise that Trump lost, but he lost resoundingly, without judicial hedging, concurrence or dissent. Judge Karen L. Henderson, a George H.W. Bush nominee, joined two Biden appointees, Judges Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs, in ruling against him, and they sent a tacit message of solidarity by issuing the decision per curiam — for the court — without a single, identified author.
On the merits, the panel didn’t engage in nitpicking about whether the actions at the center of Trump’s indictment were official in nature or stemmed from his simultaneous role as a presidential candidate that might have sent the case back to Chutkan for further review. Rather, Trump lost, flat out — and correctly so.
As the appeals court has weighed his case, Trump has been on a social media tirade about the supposedly dire implications for future presidents of denying him immunity from prosecution. Without that protection, Trump asserts, presidents in office will be forever looking over their shoulders, retaliated against by victorious rivals, who will deploy prosecutors to go after opponents. “A president of the United States must have full immunity, without which it would be impossible for him/her to properly function,” Trump posted on Truth Social last month.
On that score, the opinion offers a convincing refutation. “We cannot presume that a President will be unduly cowed by the prospect of post-Presidency criminal liability any more than a juror would be influenced by the prospect of post-deliberation criminal liability, or an executive aide would be quieted by the prospect of the disclosure of communications in a criminal prosecution,” the panel said. “Moreover, past Presidents have understood themselves to be subject to impeachment and criminal liability, at least under certain circumstances, so the possibility of chilling executive action is already in effect.”
Rather, the court noted, “Instead of inhibiting the President’s lawful discretionary action, the prospect of federal criminal liability might serve as a structural benefit to deter possible abuses of power and criminal behavior.” Indeed, it said, “It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity.”
Impunity. That’s what Trump has been seeking for years. He may yet succeed, but Tuesday’s ruling was a blow for accountability and the rule of law — and against the Trumpian proposition that, as the court said, “the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Donald Low
Mort Laitner
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
visit website
