The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Denial of Donald Trump's immunity claim. He was thorough and emphatic on Tuesday, to the point that he could get his election interference trial back on track before the November election.
He opinion It is per curiam, meaning that all three judges on the panel joined in and no one was named as the perpetrator. In this case, the form has a purpose: it communicates a unanimity of purpose and a sense of importance. As the opinion says, “The question of whether a former president enjoys absolute immunity from federal criminal liability is a question of first impression.”
It may also be the reason why the ruling took longer than many expected: every word had to be carefully worded to satisfy each judge.
At the core of the opinion is his forceful rejection of Trump's appeal on the grounds that his extravagant position would violate basic principles of separation of powers. “At bottom,” the court memorably notes, “former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches.”
The court also bases the opinion on individual rights – that is, the right to vote – on the basis that Trump's arguments suggest “that a president has unlimited authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental control of the executive branch: the recognition and implementation of human rights”. election results.” The justices wrote that they could not support Trump's “apparent argument that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes counted.”
This double foundation in constitutional structure and individual rights places opinion on the most stable basis possible.
The opinion also contends with a friend-of-the-court brief that holds that the appeals court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal before the trial based on 1989 Supreme Court decision Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States. He methodically arrives at the sensible, though somewhat contrary to the language of that case, conclusion that the doctrine does not apply here. The judges reason that while the case appears to apply on its own terms, the more important point is that immunity is a right not to be prosecuted in the first place.
Almost as important as the court's response to the unprecedented questions at hand is its treatment of the mandate: the official declaration that returns the case to the trial court and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Typically, such an order is issued at least 21 days after the decision, giving the loser time to seek a solution. on bench reconsideration of the panel's decision by the full circuit court. In this case, however, the panel deliberately gave Trump only six days.
That means that if Trump cannot secure a stay of the ruling by Monday, the case will return to the trial court and resume its normal course. So, in practice, he doesn't have time to look for a on bench a new hearing on the DC Circuit, where his prospects would be remote in any case. Ensuring that there was no appetite for such reconsideration among the other judges may have explained some of the time the panel took to rule.
Therefore, Trump will have to request a stay from the Supreme Court. He almost certainly will and will accompany it with a request that the Supreme Court hear the case. Trump has to wait for four judges to vote to hear the case and a fifth to suspend the mandate; he needs both to prevent the case from resuming under Chutkan's command. He could go to trial in May if the ruling is not stayed.
If the Supreme Court takes the case and stays the ruling, even on a likely accelerated timeline, it could take until late June to issue a ruling. That would mean the earliest possible trial would take place in the middle of the presidential campaign, raising a whole host of issues that could persuade Chutkan or a higher court to apply the brakes.
With the Supreme Court already scheduled to hear arguments this week on whether Trump should be disqualified from the ballot, it's not hard to imagine the justices overlooking this case, especially in light of the lower court's comprehensive and persuasive opinion. . On the other hand, it is not difficult to imagine the justices deciding to enter the fray and provide a definitive resolution for a case of this magnitude. His decision could be pivotal given the crucial question of whether the trial reaches a verdict before the campaign.
Harry Litman is the host of Podcast “Talking about federals”. @harrylitman
