The latest news on Trump's immunity claim:
- A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments today over former President Donald Trump's claim that he is immune from prosecution connected to his effort to overturn the 2020 election.
- Trump, who attended today's arguments, faces charges in a Washington, D.C., federal court that were filed by special counsel Jack Smith. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the four charges: conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction; and conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted.
- Trump contends that his efforts in 2020 were within his official presidential duties and therefore protected by presidential immunity.
- The judges are all women: Judge Karen Henderson, who was appointed in 1990 by then-President George H.W. Bush, and Judges Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, both appointed by President Joe Biden.
- Dean John Sauer, a former Missouri solicitor general and clerk for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, argued on behalf of Trump. James Pearce, a career lawyer in the Justice Department, represented the special counsel.
Stay tuned for quick ruling by the appeals court
With oral arguments now complete, the three-judge appeals court panel will now turn toward issuing a quick ruling in the case, which has been heard on an expedited schedule.
A decision could come within days, although there is no deadline for the court to act and it could take longer to draft the decision, especially if the court addresses all the major legal issues. If one judges dissents, that could also hold things up.
Whatever happens, the losing party would be expected to quickly appeal to the Supreme Court. One important detail of any ruling will be whether the court sets a short timeline for the decision to go into effect, which would put pressure on Trump — should he lose — to file an appeal quickly with the Supreme Court instead of delaying his next move to buy time.
Trump says he thinks the arguments went well
The former president said in remarks from the Waldorf Astoria that he thinks his legal team's arguments went well in court today.
"I think it's very unfair" when an opponent, a political opponent, is prosecuted, he said.
"They're losing in every poll, they're losing in almost every demographic," Trump said about Biden.
He said that the prosecution of him is a "threat to democracy," and added that he did "nothing wrong."
Trump reiterated, without evidence, that they "found tremendous voter fraud" in the 2020 election. He said that Smith's team conceded two points today that "by normal standards" would make it the end of the case.
Trump attacks Georgia prosecutor
Speaking after the arguments in his appeal, Trump turned his focus to the case in Georgia to attack the prosecutor after one of his co-defendants submitted a filing last night arguing that prosecutor Fani Willis is romantically involved with an outside prosecutor her office hired.
"Their case is so compromised now it has to be dropped," Trump claimed.
Trump is speaking from a room at his old hotel
Trump is about to speak from the Waldorf Astoria in Washington, D.C., which used to be the Trump International Hotel.
Trump press conference has begun
One of Trump's lawyers, John Lauro, spoke first.
Trump shook head at prosecutor's 'vindictive' remark
Among the times Trump appeared annoyed was when Pearce told the judges that he didn't think the case would open a floodgate of others against presidents.
Trump shook his head in disagreement when Pearce said he didn't expect "to see a sea change of vindictive tit-for-tat prosecutions in the future."
View from inside the courtroom: Trump appeared agitated during arguments
Trump entered the courtroom at 9:25 a.m. and sat at the counsel’s table.
He was mostly muted during his lawyers’ arguments but grew flustered at points during the special counsel's arguments.
Trump appeared agitated at times, passing notes to his lawyers on a yellow legal pad.
He grew most animated when his lawyer claimed on rebuttal that Trump was winning in the polls, vigorously shaking his head yes.
What could happen next?
The court is hearing the case on an expedited schedule, so a ruling could come quickly. Whatever happens, the losing party is likely to immediately appeal to the Supreme Court. The justices would then face a decision on whether to take up the case and issue their own ruling, potentially also on a fast-tracked basis.
But the Supreme Court is not required to take up the case and could simply leave the appeals court ruling in place. If Trump loses the appeal and the Supreme Court declines to hear his case, then the trial could still move forward quickly.
Trump will speak at nearby hotel
Trump's campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said that he would be making remarks shortly at a local hotel.
Walt Nauta is in the courtroom
Walt Nauta was in the courtroom, next to his lawyer Stan Woodward.
Nauta has been charged by the special counsel's office in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case against Trump, which is not the case that was being argued today.
Pearce warns of 'frightening future'
Pearce expressed concern about what would happen if the court went along with Trump's argument about total immunity against criminal charges linked to official acts.
"Frankly, as I think Judge Pan’s hypothetical described, what kind of world are we living in if, as I understood my friend on the other side to say here, a president orders his SEAL team to assassinate a political rival and resigns for example, before an impeachment? Not a criminal act. President sells a pardon, resigns or is not impeached? Not a crime," Pearce said.
"I think that is an extraordinarily frightening future and that is the kind of if we’re talking about a balancing and a weighing of the interests I think that should weigh extraordinarily heavily in the court's consideration."
Arguments conclude
After a little more than an hour, the court concluded arguments.
Pan asks if appeal boils down to whether Trump's interpretation of impeachment judgment is correct
Judge Pan says that since Trump has conceded that a president can be prosecuted under certain circumstances — such as Congress impeaching and convicting him — then the appeal largely boils down to whether he's correct in his interpretation of the impeachment judgment.
“That is if he’s correct, that the impeachment judgment clause includes this impeachment first rule, then he wins, and if he’s wrong, if we think the impeachment judgment clause does not contain an impeachment first rule, then he loses," Pan says.
Pearce says he agrees with her characterization.
Pearce concludes; Trump's lawyer responding now
Sauer is back up responding to Pearce's arguments.
This is moving faster than many thought it would.
Pearce argues impeachment and prosecution are separate processes
Pearce argues that impeachment and prosecution are separate processes.
Pearce says impeachment is a political process, but there is also a legal process, which he argues is not political.
The legal process, he says, has the kinds of safeguards that some members of the court have already referred to. He says, for example, that prosecutors follow strict codes and are presumed to act with regularity.
Pearce says the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's actions justify his prosecution
Pearce said Trump's being prosecuted shouldn't be seen as evidence that the "flood gates" will open to allow politically motivated prosecutions.
"The fact that this investigation (resulted in charges) doesn’t reflect that we are going to see a sea change of vindictive tit-for-tat prosecutions in the future," Pearce said. "I think it reflects the fundamentally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here. Never before has there been allegations that a sitting president ... using the levers of power, sought to fundamentally subvert the democratic republic and the electoral system, and frankly, if that kind of fact pattern arises again, I think it would be awfully scary if there weren’t some sort of mechanism by which to reach that criminally."
Trump lawyer and special counsel attorney agree on jurisdiction question
Pearce is arguing in agreement with Sauer, essentially, that the court should decide whether Trump has immunity and not rule that they don't have jurisdiction because the appeal is being made before a trial.
The idea that the court doesn't have jurisdiction was raised by an outside group that filed its own brief.
Sauer argues that a president worrying about consequences of decisions could dampen his abilities
Sauer argues that if a president has to look over his shoulder every time he has to make a consequential decision and question whether it would lead to him going to jail when his political opponent takes power, he says it inevitably dampens the ability of the president.
Last second appeal to hold a mandate by Trump's lawyer
Sauer ended his remarks by asking that if the panel rules against them, to hold off on issuing a mandate to the lower court and allow them time to appeal.
They know they’re facing an uphill battle with this panel so this all comes down to timing.
Trump's lawyer concludes his portion of arguments
James Pearce from Smith's office is up next.
Sauer declines to say whether Smith was improperly appointed as a brief argues
Judge Childs says that one of the briefs in the case argued that Smith was improperly appointed as special counsel.
Sauer says it’s an important brief but that Trump is not taking that position “at this time."
Sauer calls the brief “persuasive” but notes he’s not bringing that up here.
Sauer has suggested certain examples presidents could be indicted for if Trump loses this argument
In his argument about how Trump should be immune from prosecution, Sauer has proposed several things that former and current presidents could be indicted for.
He wondered, for instance, if President George W. Bush could be indicted for obstruction of an official proceeding by giving false information to Congress that caused the U.S. to go to war in Iraq under false pretenses.
Sauer asked whether President Barack Obama could potentially be charged "with murder for allegedly authorizing drone strikes" targeting U.S. citizens abroad. He also said that maybe President Joe Biden could be indicted over his handling of the influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
If this were private conduct, the arguments would be different
Trump’s lawyer has no choice but to concede here that if his client were being charged for purely “private” conduct then he could be prosecuted — that’s because of a precedent against former President Bill Clinton.
It’s also why you see Trump repeatedly saying he was not acting as a candidate, but rather as president, in investigating allegations of voter fraud. If a court finds he was acting as a candidate then the appeal is over.
Unclear if Trump will speak to reporters today
Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told NBC News that it's up in the air whether or when Trump will address reporters at any point today.
When he has attended his civil fraud trial and other cases, he often speaks to reporters on camera during breaks and after the trial.
Judge Pan asks Sauer what a president could be charged for
Judge Pan asks Sauer if a president could sell pardons or military secrets.
The sale of pardons is an excellent example, Sauer says, bringing up examples of such allegations against President Bill Clinton.
“Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?” Pan asks.
“He would have to be impeached and convicted first," Sauer says.
Judge Childs was a popular GOP choice to be Biden's Supreme Court nominee
A reminder as Judge Childs questions Trump’s attorney in the presidential immunity hearing today — she was a favorite of some Republicans, most notably Lindsey Graham, to be Biden’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat now occupied by Ketanji Brown Jackson.
If Trump decides to attack her specifically later, it will be interesting to see how those Senate Republicans respond.
Judge Pan presses Trump lawyers on hypotheticals
The judges are pressing Trump’s legal team on the bounds of their argument now by raising some pretty stark examples of things that to a lay person would seem extraordinary — like using the military to assassinate a political rival.
Trump’s legal team’s position is if the president hasn’t been impeached for it and convicted, then he’s immune.
Childs starts by asking if the court has jursidiction
Judge Childs has started by asking whether the court should even be hearing this appeal at this point, before a verdict has been reached. This line of argument could be an easy out for the court to not decide the actual immunity appeal.
Arguments have begun
The court proceeding at the federal courthouse has begun.
Who are the judges?
The all-woman panel includes two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee. The senior member is Judge Karen Henderson, a long-serving appeals court judge appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1990.
The two Democratic appointees are both recent additions to the court nominated by President Joe Biden. They are Judge Michelle Childs, who was considered for the Supreme Court opening that ultimately went to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Judge Florence Pan, who previously served as a federal district court judge and as a local judge in Washington.
Trump's motorcade has arrived at the courthouse
The former president has arrived at the federal courthouse in downtown Washington, D.C.
What is Trump's argument in this appeal?
Trump is making the sweeping argument that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for any “official acts” taken while in office. Furthermore, his lawyers argue in their briefs that prosecuting Trump over actions for which he was already impeached and acquitted in the Senate following an impeachment proceeding would be a form of double jeopardy.
“The indictment of President Trump threatens to launch cycles of recrimination and politically motivated prosecution that will plague our nation for many decades to come and stands likely to shatter the very bedrock of our Republic,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in court papers.
They argue that Trump’s role in questioning the result of the election was within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibilities as president, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling about presidential immunity in a civil case.
The special counsel’s office argues that the well-established concept of presidential immunity from civil liability for official acts does not extend to immunity from criminal liability.
“No historical materials support the defendant’s broad immunity claim,” Smith wrote in court papers. The fact that President Richard Nixon sought and received a pardon after resigning from office as a result of the Watergate scandal “reflects the consensus view that a former president is subject to prosecution after leaving office,” he added.
Jack Smith has been spotted in the courthouse
Special counsel Jack Smith was spotted in the federal courthouse Tuesday morning.
Tanya Chutkan, the judge overseeing Trump’s federal election interference case, appears to be victim of ‘swatting’
Police and fire trucks showed up Sunday night at the house of Tanya Chutkan, the federal judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s election interference case after she appeared to be the target of an attempted “swatting” attack.
Police confirmed to NBC News that they responded to false reports of a shooting at a house that a witness identified as Chutkan’s home. A law enforcement official also confirmed that it was Chutkan’s home and that she was home when police arrived at her residence.
A police report obtained by NBC News said that officers with the Metropolitan Police Department responded to a call just after 10 p.m. ET that referenced a shooting that occurred at the location. Once authorities arrived at the scene, an unnamed subject said she “was not injured and that there was no one in her home.”
Trump has departed from Virginia golf club
Trump has left his golf club in Sterling, Virginia. He is headed to the downtown D.C. courthouse.
Trump lawyers are in the courthouse
Trump lawyers D. John Sauer, Will Scharf and Emil Bove have been spotted in the building.
They were accompanied by Stan Woodward, lawyer for Trump’s Florida co-defendant Walt Nauta. Woodward is not representing a party in this case.
Appeals court weighs Trump’s immunity claim in election interference case
A federal appeals court today will hear arguments about whether Trump is immune from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in a chain of events that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
Trump is expected to be in attendance when oral arguments begin at 9:30 a.m. at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. The hearing could last for several hours.
The case is one of four criminal prosecutions Trump faces as he fights on multiple legal fronts while remaining the presumptive front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.
Trump plans to be in court for 2 days the week before Iowa. His campaign is fine with that.
CLINTON, Iowa — The Iowa campaign trail has long been littered with mainstays, like Pizza Ranch and the Machine Shed BBQ restaurant, but Trump aims to add a new stop today nearly 900 miles from Des Moines: A courtroom in Washington, D.C.
His campaign and allies see this detour from the Hawkeye State days before the caucuses as a boost, not a detriment, to his bid to return to the White House.
“I think the Democrats intended to hurt him by tying him down in a courtroom, but it’s backfiring on them spectacularly,” said Mike Davis, an outside legal and political adviser who is in frequent contact with Trump and his campaign. “They’re turning Donald Trump into Nelson Mandela.”
How to watch arguments in Trump's appeal?
Audio of the arguments will be livestreamed and available on this page.
What are the charges that Trump is facing?
In August, a federal grand jury in Washington indicted Trump on four charges: conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction; and conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted. Trump pleaded not guilty.
Washington-based U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, wants the trial to go ahead in March, which would allow it to be concluded well before the election, but Trump’s appeal threatens that timeline unless courts act quickly.