There is now officially a mandate following Donald Trump’s recent loss before a three-judge panel on an appeals court in New York, where before the federal judges he’d been seeking to advance claims of immunity in the context of civil litigation from writer E. Jean Carroll. The document termed the mandate officially caps off the judges’ previously circulated decision.
In short, the judges found that Trump destroyed his own opportunities for bringing claims of immunity — meaning legal protections angled to stop proceedings — by failing to raise the claims earlier. Unlike the dispute currently unfolding elsewhere in federal court amid a criminal case against Trump from Special Counsel Jack Smith that covers post-2020 election plots by Trump to retain power, legal precedent already established some presidential immunity in civil contexts, meaning legal protections by virtue of a president serving at all.
The judges noted at the outset of their earlier decision that there is established precedent for some potential defenses in court being subject to the possibility of their effective waiver if a party to a case fails to present the claims at an early stage. “Ordinarily, defendants are deemed to have waived or forfeited defenses that they did not raise at the outset of the litigation,” they noted. Trump also lost in a subsequent attempt to get another look at the dispute by every judge serving on that appeals court instead of just three of them. And as this week got underway, a trial covering additional claims from Carroll got moving, though the questions there deal only with potential (financial) penalties on Trump for allegations of defamation.
Liability implicating Trump was already established. Specifically, the three-judge appeals panel affirmed an earlier rejection of attempts by Trump to bring forward claims of immunity at the District Court level. The higher court also dismissed an appeal from Trump challenging earlier findings that statements of his were defamatory.
