On Sunday, January 5, president-elect Donald J. Trump filed an appeal seeking to stay criminal proceedings against him based on claims of presidential immunity. This legal maneuver, just weeks before his scheduled inauguration on January 20, raises profound constitutional questions about the scope of Presidential immunity, its applicability to a President-elect, and its implications for the rule of law. This assertion raises significant constitutional and legal questions, particularly concerning the separation of powers and the consistency of legal principles applied to all citizens, including former and future officeholders.
Presidential immunity was well-established doctrine designed to protect the presidency as an institution rather than the individual occupying the office. However, the scope of this immunity has come under scrutiny following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States (603 U.S. 593, 2024), which emphasized that immunity shields a president from certain legal proceedings during their term to ensure the “effective functioning of government.” Critics argue this decision introduced ambiguities regarding its limits, particularly in unprecedented scenarios like transitional periods.
Trump’s legal team argues that this immunity should extend to his status as president-elect. However, courts have consistently ruled that presidential immunity applies only to acts performed within the official duties of the Presidency. The act at the center of these proceedings — an alleged payment made to silence a personal matter — occurred before Donald Trump’s initial term and is unrelated to any presidential prerogatives, as detailed in People v. Donald J. Trump (Clayton Decision). Such actions fall outside the protections of presidential immunity, challenging the validity of Trump’s defense.
Trump’s argument introduces a novel interpretation of presidential immunity, suggesting its application before formally assuming office. This raises the question: does a president-elect possess immunity identical to that of a sitting president? Such an extension risks setting a dangerous precedent, potentially broadening immunity in ways that could shield actions beyond official presidential functions.
This claim is further complicated by constitutional provisions, particularly the 14th Amendment, Section 3. If sentenced, Trump could face disqualification from holding office under its prohibition against individuals involved in constitutionally disqualifying acts. While the relevance of this clause to the current charges remains debated, its invocation highlights the broader constitutional stakes.
The rule of law demands that all individuals, regardless of status, are held accountable under the same legal standards. This case poses a significant test to that principle. The proceedings against Trump are not politically motivated; they reflect the consistent application of impartial justice. The Supreme Court’s rulings on presidential immunity emphasize its limited scope, explicitly excluding acts of personal misconduct unconnected to presidential authority.
If the court upholds Trump’s claims, it risks creating a two-tiered legal system where those transitioning to or holding political office enjoy protections unavailable to ordinary citizens. This would erode public confidence in the judiciary and undermine the foundational principle that no one is above the law.
While the legal actions are apolitical, their potential consequences could be profound. A conviction could render Trump ineligible to assume the presidency, fundamentally altering the political landscape just days before his scheduled inauguration. The case’s outcome will set a critical precedent, defining the boundaries of presidential immunity and influencing public trust in the equitable application of justice.
A particularly troubling question arising from this case is whether both Joe Biden and Donald Trump currently hold presidential immunity. If so, this would imply that, during the transitional period, two individuals simultaneously possess immunity — a scenario unsupported by constitutional doctrine and potentially in conflict with the separation of powers. Resolving this ambiguity is critical to prevent misuse of the immunity doctrine and ensure the balance of authority between branches of government.
This case represents a pivotal moment for the resilience of the rule of law amid unprecedented legal and political challenges. The judiciary must uphold established legal doctrines while ensuring that no individual, regardless of office, is above accountability. By adhering to constitutional principles and resisting political pressures, the courts can safeguard the integrity of democratic governance in the United States.
The resolution of Donald Trump’s appeal will likely reverberate far beyond this case, influencing future interpretations of presidential immunity.
Elliot Michaud is an Assistant Editor at JURIST and a recent graduate of the Université Côte d’Azur (FR). He holds a Master’s degree in International and European Law, and specializes in international trade.
