BOMBSHELL: Three Federal Judges Rejected Trump’s Immunity Claim — Then the Supreme Court Rewrote the Rules, and the Case Took a Stunning Turn

Chapter 01 - BOMBSHELL: Three Federal Judges Rejected Trump’s Immunity Claim — Then the Supreme Court Rewrote the Rules, and the Case Took a Stunning Turn

## chapter 01 - The Three Judges Who Delivered a Unanimous Rejection

WASHINGTON, D.C. — On February 6, 2024, three federal appeals court judges delivered a unanimous decision that appeared to move Donald Trump one step closer to a criminal trial.

The ruling was direct.

The implications were enormous.

And at the center of the 57-page opinion was a phrase that would echo throughout America's legal and political debate.

"Citizen Trump."

For months, the former president's lawyers had maintained that presidential immunity protected him from federal prosecution over actions connected to the aftermath of the 2020 election.

Special Counsel Jack Smith had brought four criminal charges alleging that Trump participated in unlawful efforts to overturn the election results.

Trump denied wrongdoing and argued that his conduct was protected by his presidential responsibilities.

Now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had rejected his broad immunity argument.

All three judges agreed.

Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Florence Pan, and J. Michelle Childs concluded that Trump's former position as president did not provide the immunity from this prosecution that his lawyers sought.

Their decision represented an important moment in the country's legal history.

Never before had a former American president faced federal criminal prosecution for conduct allegedly committed while serving in the White House.

And no court had previously been required to answer precisely how presidential immunity applied in such circumstances.

The judges understood that their ruling would reach far beyond one defendant.

At stake was the relationship between presidential authority and the criminal law.

Could a former president be prosecuted for actions allegedly taken to remain in power?

Or did the constitutional responsibilities of the presidency require broader protection from prosecution?

Trump's attorneys warned that allowing such a case to proceed would expose future presidents to retaliatory criminal charges after leaving office.

Federal prosecutors countered that the presidency could not become a permanent shield against accountability for alleged criminal conduct.

The appeals court sided with prosecutors on the immunity question.

But the judges did not determine whether Trump was guilty.

They did not conduct a criminal trial.

And they did not establish that every allegation in Smith's indictment was true.

Their decision concerned whether the prosecution could proceed despite Trump's assertion of presidential immunity.

That legal distinction mattered.

Still, the ruling was an unmistakable setback for Trump's defense.

For those concerned about presidential accountability, it raised the possibility that a trial could examine the allegations before the November election.

For Trump's supporters, it intensified concerns that the prosecution was being used against a political opponent.

The legal arguments were already deeply controversial.

And then another possibility entered the picture.

Trump could take the dispute to the highest court in the country.

The Supreme Court of the United States.

What happened there would change the trajectory of the case—and produce one of the most consequential constitutional rulings of the modern presidency.

[image](https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://abcnews.com\&sz=32)

ABC News