Not a surprising result. Now the question is whether SCOTUS takes the case. Given the narrowness and clarity of the Court of Appeal's 3-0 decision, there's plenty of speculation that this will be the final word on immunity. In any event, it appears we'll know whether or not it's going up by the end of this month. If the Supreme Court declines to hear it, the election subversion trial will probably proceed no later than May and be over by mid-July.
Some highlights from the court's 57 page per curiam opinion:
"Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 presidential election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role - -the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes - - thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of Congress. To immunize former President Trump's actions would .. 'further aggrandize the presidential office, already so potent and relatively immune from judicial review, at the expense of Congress.'"
"We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power - - the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count."
"Former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter." (emphasis added).
Read the opinion below.
www.nytimes.com
Some highlights from the court's 57 page per curiam opinion:
"Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 presidential election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role - -the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes - - thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of Congress. To immunize former President Trump's actions would .. 'further aggrandize the presidential office, already so potent and relatively immune from judicial review, at the expense of Congress.'"
"We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power - - the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count."
"Former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter." (emphasis added).
Read the opinion below.
The Trump Election Immunity Ruling, Annotated
A three-judge appeals court panel rejected former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he was immune to criminal charges. Read its decision, with Times analysis.
