Image 01 Image 03

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Stay Appeals Court Ruling Rejecting Immunity in D.C. Case

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Stay Appeals Court Ruling Rejecting Immunity in D.C. Case

“This Court should stay the D.C. Circuit’s mandate to forestall, once again, an unprecedented and unacceptable departure from ordinary appellate procedures and allow President Trump’s claim of immunity to be decided in the ordinary course of justice.”

Former President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to pause the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of his presidential immunity claim.

“This Court should stay the D.C. Circuit’s mandate to forestall, once again, an unprecedented and unacceptable departure from ordinary appellate procedures and allow President Trump’s claim of immunity to be decided in the ordinary course of justice,” wrote Trump’s lawyers.

The district court gave Trump’s team until February 12 to make this filing.

If the justices do not issue a stay as they consider his appeal, the trial will resume.

Trump’s team presented SCOTUS with two questions:

I. Whether the doctrine of absolute presidential immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s official acts, i.e., those performed within the “‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982) (quoting Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 575 (1959)).

II. Whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 7, and principles of double jeopardy foreclose the criminal prosecution of a President who has been impeached and acquitted by the U.S. Senate for the same and/or closely related conduct that underlies the criminal charges.

The team claimed the district court did not consider if Trump’s “alleged actions fell within the ‘outer perimeter of his official responsibility.'”

The “outer perimeter” means outside of the President’s official duties. SCOTUS found “in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that the President is absolutely immune in actions for civil damages for all acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official duties.”

The lawyers believe that if Trump loses presidential immunity, it could threaten future presidents. In other words…another dangerous precedent being set because Orange Man Bad tunnel vision:

The threat of future criminal prosecution by a politically opposed Administration will overshadow every future President’s official acts—especially the most politically controversial decisions. The President’s political opponents will seek to influence and control his or her decisions via effective extortion or blackmail with the threat, explicit or implicit, of indictment by a future, hostile Administration, for acts that do not warrant any such prosecution. This threat will hang like a millstone around every future President’s neck, distorting Presidential decision making, undermining the President’s independence, and clouding the President’s ability “‘to deal fearlessly and impartially with’ the duties of his office.” Id. at 752. Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the Presidency as we know it will cease to exist.

Trump’s lawyers also pointed out that the stay would also provide another relief, giving Trump time to petition for an en banc consideration.

The en banc review would ask the entire district court to review the decision:

As additional relief, in issuing its stay, President Trump requests that this Court direct that the D.C. Circuit’s mandate is stayed pending the resolution, not just of proceedings in this Court, but also of President Trump’s planned petition for en banc consideration in the D.C. Circuit, which he intends to file in the D.C. Circuit in the ordinary course before seeking (if necessary) this Court’s review, if given the opportunity to do so. As noted in President Trump’s Brief in Opposition in No. 23-624, en banc consideration by the lower courts provides an important part of the percolation that this Court ordinarily prefers before reviewing petitions for certiorari. For example, in United States v. Nixon, this Court had the benefit of the multiple thoughtful opinions produced by the D.C. Circuit’s en banc consideration of Nixon v. Sirica, which addressed the same executive privilege asserted against a grand-jury subpoena the year before. 487 F.2d 700, 700-22 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (en banc) (cited in Nixon, 418 U.S. at 689, 708 & n.17); id. at 729 (MacKinnon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id. at 762 (Wilkey, J., dissenting). Allowing President Trump to pursue en banc review in the D.C. Circuit will provide an opportunity for similar thoughtful consideration in the lower court before this Court addresses the novel, complex, and momentous issues at stake in this appeal. See Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 211 F.3d 853, 854-55 (4th Cir. 2000) (Wilkinson, C.J., concurring in the denial of initial hearing en banc).


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


JohnSmith100 | February 12, 2024 at 10:24 pm

Our legal system proceeds at glacial pace most of the time

Mauiobserver | February 12, 2024 at 10:29 pm

Not an attorney but can’t imagine the Supreme Court would force the trial to be held prior to the election.

Would also be surprised if they did not rule that he has immunity for the speech he gave on Jan 6 and for questioning election results.

Obviously we have had Presidential elections challenges before. In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled on the Florida results determining the winner. In 1876 the election was determined in the House after votes and negotiations.

Nothing new or unanticipated by the drafters of our constitution.

so, why wold the framers give the president absolute pardoning power, including himself, if they didn’t assume he didn’t have immunity

being able to pardon yourself is immunity

if the SCOTUS doesn’t rule for Trump , every president from now on will pardon himself before he leaves office

I’m quite sure this is not what the framers intended

and I understand, it’s only for federal crimes

this country needs to get a grip and needs to quickly or some other country will provide us with one

around our throats

Aarradin | February 13, 2024 at 12:31 am

Standard rule is, you get 90 days to appeal for an en banc hearing, and if you lose that you get 45 days to appeal to SCOTUS.

These three leftie appellate judges that ruled against him gave him 6 days to appeal to SCOTUS or their decision would take effect. No explanation for eliminating the option to appeal for an en banc hearing, no explanation for why they were limiting him to 6 days.

D’s are always on about how “no one is above the law”, and time after time we see that Trump is beneath it – does not have the same rights as anyone else for no reason other than the D’s need to destroy him before the election and their partisan judges are more than happy to help any way they can. This aside from the fact that D’s like Hillary and the entire Biden family are clearly above the law – not being prosecuted despite clear evidence that they actually committed the same felonies that Trump is falsely accused of.

Our courts are a pathetic joke.

    BartE in reply to Aarradin. | February 13, 2024 at 5:51 am

    These three leftie appellate judges – err no one was a bush appointee.

    Its pretty obvious why they limited the time frames a) because the case for immunity is a total joke and b) because there is a much greater public interest in having the trial in advance of the election.

    “D’s are always on about how “no one is above the law”, and time after time we see that Trump is beneath it” No time and time again Trump wants to avoid a trial by delaying with near frivolous claims. Clogging up the legal system to avoid your day in court is Trump avoiding the law not Democrats circumventing it.

      4rdm2 in reply to BartE. | February 13, 2024 at 6:44 am

      Shouter was a bush appointee. He was also a leftist
      This isn’t the dunk you think it is.

        mailman in reply to 4rdm2. | February 13, 2024 at 3:14 pm

        You say this as if there is any difference 😂😂

        Mauiobserver in reply to 4rdm2. | February 13, 2024 at 3:22 pm

        Prior to Harry Reid blowing up the rule for 60 votes to confirm judges all of Reagan’s, and Bush the elder and GW had to have significant Democrat support.

        The result is that most Federal judges confirmed under GOP presidents prior to Trump were liberal republicans who were only marginally better than democrats.

        What is worse is that establishment types including the judges hate Trump far more than they do the most left wing democrats.

        The Bush family are patrician Connecticut establishment elites. They view Trump and Tea Party/Maga type populists as their mortal enemies. The establishment judges are almost as anti Trump as the lunatic Obama appointed DC judges.

      4rdm2 in reply to BartE. | February 13, 2024 at 6:45 am

      Following the law isn’t ‘clogging up the legal system’. What the democrats are doing is inarguably trying to use the legal system as a blunt instrument campaigning tool.

      AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to BartE. | February 13, 2024 at 8:09 am

      BarkE dropping his puppy shit everywhere he goes. Constant barking to let everyone know!

      drsamherman in reply to BartE. | February 13, 2024 at 11:17 am

      “Much greater public interest”? So you’re using this as the reason for walking all over a defendant’s right to use due process in a criminal proceeding just because you don’t like that defendant’s politics? Right. How many bananas are on the flag of the “republic” you came from?

      Virginia42 in reply to BartE. | February 13, 2024 at 12:30 pm

      The cases themselves are frivolous. Not too hard to figure out.

      The_Mew_Cat in reply to BartE. | February 13, 2024 at 2:30 pm

      It is not a total joke and does have big implications for the Presidency. That does not mean Trump is likely to prevail, though.

      luckydog in reply to BartE. | February 13, 2024 at 3:27 pm

      Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

      Sixth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (

      • The right to “a speedy trail” is granted to the accused, not the government – and not the public.

      • The right to waive the right to “a speedy trail” is granted to the accused, not the government – and not the public.

    mailman in reply to Aarradin. | February 13, 2024 at 6:35 am

    Case in point;

    Remember, Democrats sent heavily armed agents to raid Mrs Trumps underwear drawers for material he had every right to while they sent politely written emails marked with love hearts and kisses to Bidens lawyers to hurry up and return stuff Biden had absolutely no right to store in multiple locations with little to no security or processes to ensure the documents access control and security.

    Concise in reply to Aarradin. | February 13, 2024 at 8:47 am

    Pushing Roberts’ theory on objective, non-political judges to the breaking point.

But wait, what about the newly created prosecution right to rush into a trial as quickly as possible, just because we want to?

E Howard Hunt | February 13, 2024 at 9:30 am

If the framers took one look at the Supreme Court they could be forgiven for mistaking them for vagrants.

Leftists on the bench only do the right thing as a last resort, with lots of squealing and whining. If this winds up being decided by SCOTUS, it will be after the next election with a stay issued in any court that tries to usurp their authority.

Ideally, the SC should issue an overriding stay, remand the issue back to an en banc panel of the appeals court, and watch them sweat. The full panel then has a choice: Stick to the Narrative and issue a decision that’s going to get swatted down 9-0 or 8-1, or tell their three leftists that their dumb decision is a complete non-starter.

Who are the lawyers on that petition? I would have thought that I’d recognize a name or a firm.

    Aarradin in reply to Stuytown. | February 13, 2024 at 11:02 pm

    Democrats have been trying to disbar any lawyer that dared work for Trump. They’ve been prosecuting them also, on frivolous charges.

    Trump’s been having trouble finding prominent attorneys willing to work for him.

    Lawfare on another level. Democrats will stop at nothing to hold power forever.

REDACTED | February 13, 2024 at 3:15 pm

except for Sotomayor

even diabetes can’t change that scrunt mind

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.