With three appeals involving Trump currently pending before the Supreme Court, Donald Trump is denying the opportunity to add a fourth case. In December, a federal appeals court rejected Trump's assertion that presidents enjoy total immunity from lawsuits involving conduct done while in office. Trump chose not to seek the justices to alter this decision.
That permits at least three of the cases filed against him after the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to go on to the next stage, which involves collecting limited evidence on Trump's actions on that day, regardless of whether they were official or political.
Legislators and law enforcement personnel injured in the incident have been attempting to sue since 2021, but Trump has sought a judicial declaration of immunity from any litigation arising from his official duties as president.
At least for the time being, it implies that the decision of the Washington, D.C., appeals court, which determined that Trump might face charges for inciting the violence on January 6, would remain in effect. Trump seems to have been delivering his statements to supporters on Jan. 6 in his position as a reelection candidate, not in his official capacity as president, according to the unanimous verdict of the three-judge panel, which included a judge appointed by Trump.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling did not, however, completely reject Trump's efforts to establish the event's official status.
The plaintiffs in those lawsuits had agreed that Trump had until Thursday to file an appeal with the Supreme Court in order to block the ruling of the appellate court. By Thursday night, no one had filed anything, and his staff had already said that nothing was forthcoming.
Nevertheless, Trump's supporters argue that he is allowing an opportunity to revive a challenge to the verdict at a later stage. Following the conclusion of the next round of fact-finding and the trial judge's subsequent decision about the cases' ability to continue, he may attempt an additional appeal.
A spokesman for Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, Steven Cheung, said, "President Trump will continue to fight for Presidential Immunity across the spectrum.".
The Supreme Court is now handling three issues that may significantly affect Trump's electoral prospects, and that is before we even get into the civil immunity battle.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump cannot be on the ballot due to his insurrectionist activities on January 6, and the justices spent over two hours last week hearing arguments on whether to confirm or reverse this finding.
With the possibility to dismiss two of the four accusations against Trump in the election-subversion indictment that prosecutors acquired last year, the United States Supreme Court has also consented to hear a case from a different criminal defendant on January 6.
At a discussion on Friday, the justices could decide to postpone the trial until they examine Trump's assertion that ex-presidents have extensive immunity from criminal prosecution, even for crimes unrelated to their official responsibilities.
The debate over whether Trump may suffer financial consequences for the same actions has been waiting for a long time, even though Trump's attempt for criminal immunity has more immediate and pressing implications.
Judge Amit Mehta of the United States District Court denied Trump's request to use his presidential immunity to dismiss several lawsuits arising from January 6, over two years ago. According to Mehta, the First Amendment would normally have shielded Trump's Ellipse remarks.
Nevertheless, the court said that there were signs that Trump was aware of the presence of guns in the audience or other impending dangers of violence, which raised the possibility that Trump's whole behavior and statements may not be considered free political expression.
"Based on these stated circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the president intended to obstruct Congress' attempts to certify the Electoral College votes when he rallied supporters to march to the Capitol," wrote Obama appointee Mehta. "It is obvious that the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and those who broke into the Capitol building all had that rebellious purpose in mind."
That permits at least three of the cases filed against him after the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to go on to the next stage, which involves collecting limited evidence on Trump's actions on that day, regardless of whether they were official or political.
Legislators and law enforcement personnel injured in the incident have been attempting to sue since 2021, but Trump has sought a judicial declaration of immunity from any litigation arising from his official duties as president.
At least for the time being, it implies that the decision of the Washington, D.C., appeals court, which determined that Trump might face charges for inciting the violence on January 6, would remain in effect. Trump seems to have been delivering his statements to supporters on Jan. 6 in his position as a reelection candidate, not in his official capacity as president, according to the unanimous verdict of the three-judge panel, which included a judge appointed by Trump.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling did not, however, completely reject Trump's efforts to establish the event's official status.
The plaintiffs in those lawsuits had agreed that Trump had until Thursday to file an appeal with the Supreme Court in order to block the ruling of the appellate court. By Thursday night, no one had filed anything, and his staff had already said that nothing was forthcoming.
Nevertheless, Trump's supporters argue that he is allowing an opportunity to revive a challenge to the verdict at a later stage. Following the conclusion of the next round of fact-finding and the trial judge's subsequent decision about the cases' ability to continue, he may attempt an additional appeal.
A spokesman for Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, Steven Cheung, said, "President Trump will continue to fight for Presidential Immunity across the spectrum.".
The Supreme Court is now handling three issues that may significantly affect Trump's electoral prospects, and that is before we even get into the civil immunity battle.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump cannot be on the ballot due to his insurrectionist activities on January 6, and the justices spent over two hours last week hearing arguments on whether to confirm or reverse this finding.
With the possibility to dismiss two of the four accusations against Trump in the election-subversion indictment that prosecutors acquired last year, the United States Supreme Court has also consented to hear a case from a different criminal defendant on January 6.
At a discussion on Friday, the justices could decide to postpone the trial until they examine Trump's assertion that ex-presidents have extensive immunity from criminal prosecution, even for crimes unrelated to their official responsibilities.
The debate over whether Trump may suffer financial consequences for the same actions has been waiting for a long time, even though Trump's attempt for criminal immunity has more immediate and pressing implications.
Judge Amit Mehta of the United States District Court denied Trump's request to use his presidential immunity to dismiss several lawsuits arising from January 6, over two years ago. According to Mehta, the First Amendment would normally have shielded Trump's Ellipse remarks.
Nevertheless, the court said that there were signs that Trump was aware of the presence of guns in the audience or other impending dangers of violence, which raised the possibility that Trump's whole behavior and statements may not be considered free political expression.
"Based on these stated circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the president intended to obstruct Congress' attempts to certify the Electoral College votes when he rallied supporters to march to the Capitol," wrote Obama appointee Mehta. "It is obvious that the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and those who broke into the Capitol building all had that rebellious purpose in mind."
