Federal Judge Denies Trump's Bid for Absolute Immunity in Election Subversion Case
Federal judge denies Trump's bid for dismissal in election subversion case, ruling that he lacks absolute immunity for his post-election actions and statements
In Washington, DC, the federal judge overseeing Donald Trump's election subversion case has declined to dismiss the charges against the ex-president. The judge stated that Trump does not have immunity for his post-election actions and statements under the Constitution, specifically for any federal crimes committed while in office. US District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote, "The court cannot conclude that our Constitution cloaks former Presidents with absolute immunity for any federal crimes they committed while in office."
This is an issue that likely must be settled by an appeals courts above Chutkan before Trumps criminal trial, set for March.
On November 18, 2023, in Fort Dodge, Iowa, Former President Donald Trump addressed a gathering of his supporters at Fort Dodge Senior High School. He discussed a range of topics related to his time in office and current events.
Trump does not have immunity from lawsuits related to the January 6 riot, according to a ruling by the appeals court. This decision comes after a previous ruling that Trump could be sued in civil proceedings. The judge's opinion is a significant blow to Trump's hopes of using presidential protections to avoid criminal cases. Barring intervention from an appeals court, it appears that Trump could be facing trial in the near future.
"The immunities that a sitting President may have do not grant them a lifelong immunity from criminal liability. Former Presidents are not exempt from federal criminal liability and may be investigated, indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and punished for any criminal acts committed while in office," Chutkan stated. She emphasized that Trump’s time as Commander in Chief did not give him the right to evade criminal accountability like his fellow citizens.
Trump's attorneys requested that Chutkan dismiss the four charges against him in Washington, arguing that his actions to "ensure election integrity" were part of his presidential duties and therefore protected under presidential immunity.
In their statement, Trump's lawyers wrote, "But as the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and centuries of history and tradition all indicate, it is not up to the prosecution or the Court to determine the President's motivations. When the President's actions fall within the scope of his office, he is completely immune from prosecution."
Chutkan, however, dismissed that claim, stating that "on the contrary, the founding generation of America envisioned a Chief Executive who was completely different from the unaccountable, almost all-powerful rulers of other nations at that time."
Former President Donald Trump, a Republican presidential candidate, delivered a speech at a campaign event in Claremont, New Hampshire on November 11, 2023. The defense is set to begin presenting its case in Trump's fraud trial on Monday. (Photo by Scott Eisen/Getty Images)
Trump's lawyers argue that the charges in Georgia are a violation of free speech and that he cannot be prosecuted while holding the position of president. However, the judge stated that the potential for future criminal responsibility should promote serious consideration that would uphold, rather than undermine, significant constitutional principles.
Chutkan wrote that if the fear of future prosecution causes a current President to think twice before acting with criminal intent, it is an advantage, not a flaw. She added that every President will encounter tough decisions, but intentionally committing a federal crime should not be one of them.
The attorneys for the former president also argued that a president can only be charged if convicted by the Senate during impeachment proceedings. The judge rejected this argument, stating that it only applies to a sitting president - which Trump is not.
She also stated that Trump's claim that his indictment infringed upon his First Amendment rights is inaccurate, as "it is widely recognized that the First Amendment does not safeguard speech that is utilized as a tool for criminal activity."
The challenges associated with prosecuting a sitting president compared to a former president are distinctly dissimilar, the judge further noted in her statement, and "much less disruptive to the operations of the Executive Branch" - a conclusion that poses significant challenges for Trump.
This story has been updated with additional details.
CNNs Zachary Cohen contributed to this report.
