Recent development, a federal appeals court, featuring judges appointed by former President Donald Trump, has dismissed Trump’s assertion of presidential immunity in civil lawsuits related to the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
On Friday, a three-judge panel, which notably included Trump appointee Judge Gregory Katsas, a U.S. Circuit judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals, delivered a significant ruling. The panel stated, “The sole issue before us is whether President Trump has demonstrated an entitlement to official-act immunity for his actions leading up to and on January 6 as alleged in the complaints. We answer no, at least at this stage of the proceedings.”
This decision underscores a broader trend where Trump’s own judicial appointees are ruling against him in various legal battles, as reported by Newsweek on Friday, December 1.
More Read
In a previous instance in July, Judge Raag Singhal, appointed by Trump in 2019, rejected Trump’s $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN, ruling that the use of the phrase “the Big Lie” was considered opinion and did not meet the defamation standard.
Another setback occurred in December 2022, when a federal appeals court in Florida, featuring Trump appointees Britt Grant (2018) and Andrew Brasher (2019), overturned a decision blocking the Justice Department from using documents obtained during the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Despite these legal challenges, Judge Katsas, while concurring with the recent ruling, emphasized the complexity of the immunity question. He argued that while speech at political events is generally unofficial, there could be “rare cases” where comments made in such settings could be immune from lawsuits, citing President George W. Bush’s first public response to 9/11 as an example.
“The Court’s approach is well-tailored to identify campaign speech that can reasonably be viewed only as unofficial,” Katsas wrote. “It does not threaten to strip immunity from other kinds of presidential speech.”
The recent ruling leaves open the question of immunity and, if not, whether the First Amendment protects it, signaling a continued legal battle for the former president.
