Court Declines Trump Immunity Claim

A federal appeals court ruled against efforts by the legal team of former President Donald Trump to claim presidential immunity in his defamation trial against author E. Jean Carroll this week. The news comes amid a number of important developments in the court cases facing the former president.

The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a previous decision by a federal judge to reject the Trump legal team’s claim of presidential immunity.

However, Trump’s attorney Alina Habba said that the ruling was “fundamentally flawed and we will seek immediate review from the Supreme Court.”

The renewed case between the former president and Carroll is currently scheduled for Jan. 16, 2024.

Carroll seeks at least $10 million from Trump over statements he made regarding her in 2019.

The ruling sets up a significant escalation, as the Trump legal team appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Separately, Trump’s legal team argued that consideration of presidential immunity should not be issued quickly in the federal prosecution surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol protests.

On Wednesday, attorneys for the former president argued that efforts by special counsel Jack Smith to decide whether Trump is immune to prosecution in this case were intended to interfere with the 2024 election.

In a letter, Trump’s attorneys wrote that Smith and his team had “one goal in this case: To unlawfully attempt to try, convict, and sentence President Trump before an election in which he is likely to defeat President Biden. This represents a blatant attempt to interfere with the 2024 presidential election and to disenfranchise the tens of millions of voters who support President Trump’s candidacy.”

The former president’s attorneys wrote that other than “unlawful partisan motives,” there would be “no compelling reason” why the immunity claim should be considered quickly, “especially at the expense of President Trump and the public’s overriding interest in ensuring these matters of extraordinary constitutional significance are decided appropriately, with full and thoughtful consideration to all relevant authorities and arguments.”