Donald Trump Rails at Amicus Brief Against His Immunity Appeal

In their final written request to a federal appeals court to grant Donald Trump immunity in the Washington, D.C., election case, the former president's lawyers have fired back at the nonprofit watchdog American Oversight's attempts to get the case moving forward.

On December 29, American Oversight filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in U.S. v. Donald Trump, the criminal case in which the former president is charged with attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. An amicus brief is a legal document given by a person or organization who's not directly involved in the case to a court of law containing advice or information relating to the case.

Trump, who was hit with four indictments over a five-month span in 2023, has denied any wrongdoing, claiming that the cases against him are part of a political "witch hunt" led by Democrats.

Trump's lawyers have repeatedly claimed that the former president should have immunity because his actions took place while he was in office. On December 23, Trump filed a brief in the appellate court asking for the charges against him to be dismissed based on his immunity.

Trump's immunity appeal—though previously rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan—is before the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The trial, which was originally scheduled to begin in early March, is on hold while the appeal proceeds.

In its brief, American Oversight argued that the D.C. Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear Trump's appeal and the case should be sent back to the district court for trial "without further delay," as the organization wrote in a press release.

On Tuesday, Trump's attorneys filed a 41-page document that represents the final step before the defense and prosecution debate in front of a three-judge panel on January 9.

The document starts with addressing the American Oversight's amicus brief, saying that "the government concedes that his Court has appellate jurisdiction" even if the organization "contends that there is supposedly not 'an explicit...constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur.' This is incorrect," the document reads. "The president's 'unique position in the constitutional scheme,' set forth in the Executive Vesting Clause, guarantees him immunity from trial."

This claim is different from the general claim of separation-of-powers immunity from civil actions during a president's term of office, Trump's legal team wrote.

"Circuit precedent permits interlocutory appeals of 'separation of power claim[s]' like this one," the document reads. "Likewise, denials of presidential privilege in the criminal context are immediately appealable."

Trump's lawyers' argument goes on saying that he "has immunity from prosecution for his official acts" that is backed by the Constitution's text, history and policy. The former president's lawyers made many of the same claims made before, saying that the fact that no president has ever been charged with crimes in 234 years of American history suggested that they all enjoyed immunity.

Los Angeles Times senior legal affairs columnist Harry Litman commented on Trump's reply brief on X, formerly Twitter, writing: "Trump's reply brief in the DC circuit leads off with an attempted rebuttal of the American Oversight amicus brief arguing no jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal.

"Look for that claim to be a big focus of the oral argument next Tuesday."

Newsweek reached out to American Oversight and Trump's legal team by email on Wednesday for comment. Todd Blanche, one of Trump's attorneys, replied with "No comment."

Update 1/3/2024 10:35 a.m. ET: This article was updated to include a response by Todd Blanche.