In a significant development, a three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit signaled its impending rejection of former President Donald Trump's arguments claiming immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions to overturn the 2020 election results. The panel expressed skepticism over Trump's assertion of absolute immunity and questioned the expansive view of executive power he was advocating.

During the approximately 90-minute hearing in Washington, Circuit Judge Karen Henderson, a George HW Bush appointee, challenged Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, stating, "I think it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law." This remark raised doubts about the notion of absolute immunity for the former president.

Last year, Trump filed a motion to dismiss the federal indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The indictment charged Trump with seeking to reverse the 2020 election results, including promoting fraudulent slates of electors and obstructing Congress on January 6, 2021. The trial judge rejected Trump's motion, leading him to appeal to the DC Circuit. The Special Counsel attempted to expedite the process by asking the US Supreme Court to intervene directly, but the highest court returned the case to the DC Circuit.

Trump's lawyer faced an uphill battle during the hearing and ultimately conceded that presidents did not enjoy absolute immunity, acknowledging that presidents who were convicted in impeachment trials could be prosecuted. Circuit Judge Florence Pan posed thought-provoking scenarios to Trump's lawyer, suggesting that under Trump's interpretation, presidents could self-pardon, sell military secrets, or order the assassination of political rivals. Eventually, Sauer reluctantly responded with a "qualified yes," but only if there was a Senate impeachment conviction first. This acknowledgment by Trump's lawyer effectively undermined the argument of absolute immunity for presidents.

The panel of circuit judges also delved into Trump's prior statements as president, where he agreed that former officeholders were not immune from investigation and prosecution after leaving office. The judges noted that senators may have relied on these remarks to acquit him in his second impeachment trial. However, Trump's lawyer disagreed with the interpretation of his client's past remarks, claiming that they referred to general investigations and that "office holders" referred to lower-level government officials, not the president himself.

While the circuit judges expressed skepticism towards Trump's legal arguments, it remains uncertain how their eventual ruling will unfold. Henderson questioned whether Trump's actions could be seen as ministerial or discretionary acts as president. She also raised the possibility of sending the case back to the trial judge to determine on a charge-by-charge basis whether the acts constituted official or private conduct.

Despite the skepticism expressed by the panel, the hearing may still work to Trump's advantage, as his legal team's primary goal is to delay the trial scheduled to begin on March 4. They plan to appeal any unfavorable ruling at the circuit court to the US Supreme Court, which could further prolong the trial. Trump has made it clear that he aims to delay the proceedings, potentially beyond the 2024 election, in hopes of securing re-election and potentially pardoning himself or convincing his attorney general to drop the charges.

The special counsel, Jack Smith, sought to expedite the case and asked the US Supreme Court to resolve the issue of presidential immunity before the DC Circuit issued its judgment. However, the Supreme Court rejected the request last month, remanding the case back to the DC Circuit and keeping the charges against Trump on hold.

This decision by the Supreme Court has undoubtedly slowed down Trump's federal election interference case. Even if the DC Circuit were to rule against him promptly, Trump can request a rehearing of the case before the full appeals court. Furthermore, he has up to 90 days to submit his own appeal to the Supreme Court, further prolonging the legal process.