Former President Donald Trump (R) has declined to petition the Supreme Court for review of a December appeals court decision denying him presidential immunity for his actions on January 6, 2021.
Because former President Trump did not appeal this ruling, the lawsuits that have filed against him will proceed to the fact-finding stage in Washington DC federal court.
According to the Court of Appeals, a president is protected from civil liability only when carrying out his official duties.
Despite this ruling, the former president will be afforded the opportunity to “develop his own facts on the immunity question” and move for summary judgment “on his claim of official-act immunity” when appropriate.
This procedural ruling on Trump’s immunity claims is applicable in lawsuits filed against the former president by two former U.S. Capitol Police officers and several Democratic lawmakers in 2021.
While Trump’s legal team argued that his actions and remarks on January 6, 2021 fell under the scope of his presidential responsibilities, the DC Appeals Court ruled that he was instead acting as a presidential candidate at that time.
“We look forward to moving on with proving our claims and getting justice for our Capitol Police officer clients who were injured defending our democracy from Defendant Trump,” said Kristy Parker — a lawyer for plaintiffs in one of the cases — according to NBC News.
Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, told the media that “President Trump will continue to fight for Presidential Immunity across the spectrum.”
Click Here to Read the DC Court of Appeals’ Ruling
Despite not pursuing further review on this ruling, the former president has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on his immunity from criminal prosecution, requesting the Justices to stay the DC Circuit Court’s rejection of his presidential immunity claims.
If the Court denies Trump’s request, the US District Court in DC will be allowed to proceed with scheduling a criminal trial.
Alternatively, the Supreme Court could agree to further consider the case, likely pushing ahead any potential trial by several months pending oral arguments. The Justices could either treat the former president’s request narrowly, only considering whether or not to grant a stay, or they could move to review the lower court’s decision more broadly.
Last week, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, a case out of Colorado concerning the state’s decision to bar the former president from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — a Civil War era provision aimed at preventing former Confederates from rising to power.
This marked the first time in United States history that this provision had been used to disqualify a candidate for president.
[RELATED: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments on Trump Ballot Case]
Throughout the course of the two-plus hours of oral arguments, the Justices raised a number of complex legal issues surrounding the Colorado Court’s ruling, as well as the potential consequences associated with the ways in which they could decide the case.
Based on the nature of the Justices’ questions, it appears that the Court is leaning toward acceptance of the former president’s position, although nothing will be known for sure until an opinion is released.
Although there is no set time frame within which the Supreme Court can be expected to release its decision, many speculate that due to the impending nature of the 2024 election, the Justices will resolve the matter with expediency.
