Prosecutors are asking the Court of Appeals to reject Trump’s immunity claims in the election case

Federal prosecutors on Saturday asked an appeals court to reject former President Donald J. Trump’s claims that he is immune from criminal charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. White House.

The government’s complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was part of an ongoing battle between Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors in special counsel Jack Smith’s office over whether former presidents could be held criminally liable for things she did at the office.

The battle over immunity is perhaps the most important aspect of the election interference case, involving both novel questions of law and consequent issues of timing. The case is scheduled to go to Federal District Court in Washington in early March, but has been put on hold until Mr. Trump’s efforts to dismiss the charges on immunity grounds are resolved.

The call is legally important because it addresses a question that has never before been asked or fully answered. That is because Mr. Trump is both the first former president to be accused of crimes and because he has chosen to defend himself in the case with a new claim: that the office he held at the time should fully shield him from prosecution.

But the battle was about more than just the technical issue of whether the charges would hold up and whether Trump should ultimately stand trial. The defense and prosecution have been engaged in a separate but no less critical battle over when the trial will take place — specifically whether it will take place before or after the 2024 election. If the trial is held after the election and Mr Trump wins, he would have the power to order the charges against him to be dropped.

In their In filing with the appeals court, prosecutors focused on legal arguments, saying nothing in the Constitution or the country’s other founding documents supported the idea that a former president should not be subject to federal criminal law.

“The presidency plays a crucial role in our constitutional system, but so does the principle of accountability for criminal acts – especially for crimes that go to the heart of the democratic process,” wrote James I. Pearce, one of the deputies of the Mr Smith. “Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendants’ sweeping immunity claim threatens to authorize presidents to commit crimes to remain in office. The founders did not intend such an outcome and would never have allowed it.”

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who has been hearing the case since it was filed this summer, rejected Trump’s immunity claims in early December. In her decision, she acknowledged that the Justice Department has long had a policy of not indicting presidents while in office, but said that since Mr. Trump was no longer in the White House, he should be prosecuted .

“Whatever immunity a sitting president may enjoy, the United States only has one president at a time, and that position does not grant a lifetime ‘get out of jail’ pass,” she wrote. “Former presidents enjoy no special conditions regarding their federal criminal liability.”

Mr Trump appealed the decision to the first court above Judge Chutkan – the court now hearing the case.

But fearing that a protracted challenge could prevent the case from going to trial as planned, Mr. Smith made an unusual request to the Supreme Court: He asked the justices to appear before the appeals court and hear the case first. in order to expedite the matter. the trial and maintain the current trial date.

The High Court rejected Mr Smith’s request last week and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal.

A three-judge panel of that court is now considering the issue of immunity, on a very accelerated schedule. All written submissions in the case will be submitted on Tuesday. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 9.