Judge Denies Trump Presidential Immunity For 2020 Election Crimes


Donald Trump was trying to protect himself against the legal consequences of disenfranchising 2020 presidential election voters but a Washington DC federal judge pointed out specifically how the previous president attempted to interfere with “the certification of the electoral vote count.”

Judge Emmet Sullivan of the DC District Court has been presiding over this case brought by civil rights groups suing the former president. But the previous POTUS’ attorneys claim that in civil lawsuits, the ex-president’s immunity trumped voters’ rights.

Judge Sullivan told the case’s plaintiffs, Michigan Welfare Rights Organization and the NAACP, to “rewrite the lawsuit.” It seems that the ex-president’s illegal activities surrounding the 2020 election were extra-curricular events, not within the purview of presidential powers.

Indeed, the judge wrote that “such actions would not constitute executive action:”

‘If Former President Trump disrupted the certification of the electoral vote count, as Plaintiffs allege here, such actions would not constitute executive action in defense of the Constitution. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Former President Trump is not immune from monetary damages in this suit.’

Sullivan continued, criticizing the risk to “the future of the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to vote:”

‘President Trump continues to spread false claims about the 2022 elections and continues to attempt to pressure officials into nullifying the election results: Plaintiffs extensively allege the efforts of Former President Trump and his allies as recently as March 2022 to get state officials to overturn the election results; to endorse and provide financial support to candidates for office who supported his false claims of election fraud; all while fundraising for the 2024 Presidential Election. These allegations are perhaps the opposite of what the Trump Defendants term ‘vague suggestions of fear or intimidation.’.

Associate Dean at George Washington University Law School Alan B. Morrison wrote about “absolute immunity” in The Bloomberg Law:

‘The federal government is not a party to these cases, but it surely can—and indeed must—file a brief saying in no uncertain terms that, while a president has absolute immunity whenever he engages in debates about election integrity or comments on the outcome of any election, that immunity does not extend to the full scope of what Trump did on Jan. 6, and does not prevent him from being held accountable for the injuries he caused.’


This lawsuit added to the rapidly-growing stack of cases against the former resident of the White House. These included civil rights organizations’ cases regarding Trump’s involvement in the January 6 failed coup.


The ex-president has also used “absolute immunity” in another case before the federal appeals court in the nation’s Capitol. Arguments there will take place next week.

Christie writes Gloria Christie Reports & Three White Lions Substack newsletters and a Three White Lions podcast available on Apple, Spotify, etc. She is a political journalist for the liberal online newspaper The Bipartisan Report. Written in her own unique style with a twist of humor. Christie’s Mueller Report Adventures In Bite-Sizes a real-life compelling spy mystery (in progress). Find her here on Facebook. Or at Three White Lions her book on Amazon Kindle Vella and the Gloria Christie Three White Lions podcast on Apple, Spotify, etc