Trump Says Washington DC Is Horribly Run, You Agree?

By

Judges Appointed by Trump Deliver Rulings Against Him

Former President Donald Trump has faced a series of legal setbacks in recent times, with judges he appointed during his tenure playing a significant role in these rulings. One notable instance occurred on a Friday, when a federal appeals court, comprising a panel of three judges, rejected Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in civil lawsuits. These lawsuits were connected to his alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee to the U.S. Circuit Judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals in 2017 and once a potential Supreme Court nominee under Trump, was part of this unanimous decision. The judges concluded that at this stage, Trump could not claim immunity for his actions leading up to and on the day of the Capitol riot.

This decision aligns with a broader trend where Trump’s judicial appointees have often ruled against him in cases related to the 2020 election and the Capitol riot incidents. For instance, in July, Trump’s $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN was dismissed by Judge Raag Singhal, another Trump appointee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 2019. The judge ruled that CNN’s use of the term “the Big Lie” was an expression of opinion, not a factual statement, therefore not meeting the criteria for defamation.

In another significant case, Trump’s appointees played a pivotal role in December 2022. A federal appeals court in Florida, with Judges Andrew Brasher and Britt Grant (both Trump appointees in 2018 and 2019 respectively), overturned a decision that prevented the Justice Department from using documents obtained from the Mar-a-Lago raid. They ruled that there was no evidence of these records being declassified, and even if they were, it would not alter their content or classify them as personal.

Judge Katsas, in a concurring opinion, highlighted the complexity of distinguishing between official and private speech in political contexts. He drew parallels with President George W. Bush’s first public response to the 9/11 attacks, emphasizing that while political event speeches are usually unofficial, there can be exceptions. Katsas emphasized that the court’s approach was to cautiously determine the official nature of the speech without broadly stripping immunity from presidential communications, leaving open the question of whether Trump’s speech on January 6 was immune or protected under the First Amendment.