Rule of Law

RELEASE: D.C. Circuit Judges Troubled by Trump Arguments That Would Undermine Presidential Accountability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the D.C. Circuit this morning in Blassingame v. Trump, a case in which the D.C. Circuit is considering whether former President Donald Trump is entitled to absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for allegedly inciting a riot at the U.S. Capitol, Constitutional Accountability Center Vice President Praveen Fernandes issued the following reaction:

While the judges navigated a stream of hypotheticals that tried to probe the outer limits of official presidential conduct, the conduct at issue in this case—alleged incitement of a violent riot to disrupt the counting of electoral votes in a joint session of Congress—is nowhere near those outer limits. And as we argued in our amicus brief on behalf of legal scholars, absolute immunity does not shield presidents sued in their personal capacity from damages liability for unofficial acts.

Significantly, the judges at today’s argument seemed troubled by arguments advanced by the Trump legal team, arguments that, if accepted, would be deeply damaging to any commonsense notions of accountability.  In this instance, it is particularly galling to see Trump attempt to cloak himself in a notion of immunity that has roots in separation of powers when the acts alleged are about interfering with the discharge of duties (counting electoral votes) that the Constitution and federal law assign exclusively to another branch of government. Granting immunity in this case would not honor separation of powers, but rather would make a mockery of it.



Case page in Blassingame v. Trump:


Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at


More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Walsh

In Allstates v. Walsh, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is considering whether OSHA’s statutory authority to establish workplace safety standards is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
Rule of Law
January 26, 2023

White House Under Pressure to Develop a ‘Plan B’ on Student Debt

Bloomberg News
WASHINGTON (TNS) — The Biden administration is under pressure from Capitol Hill lawmakers and student...
By: Smita Ghosh, By Nancy Cook and Akayla Gardne
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. James

In National Shooting Sports Foundation v. James, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering whether a New York gun regulation violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
Rule of Law
January 16, 2023

Supreme Court’s 2 cases on Biden student loan forgiveness plan will begin in February

The Daily Orange
Oral arguments for Department of Education v. Brown and Biden v. Nebraska will begin in the U.S. Supreme Court...
Rule of Law
January 10, 2023

HEROES Act at Center of Debt-Relief Legal Fight

Inside Higher ED
Executive overreach or legal use of statutory authority? That will be a key question for...
By: Smita Ghosh, by Katherine Knott
Rule of Law
January 11, 2023

RELEASE: Statutory Text and History Make Clear that the Student Debt Relief Plan Is Authorized by the HEROES Act, Constitutional Accountability Center Amicus Brief on Behalf of Former Representative George Miller Argues

WASHINGTON, DC – Earlier today, the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) filed a brief at the...
By: Smita Ghosh