Trump argues he has presidential immunity in 2020 federal election case

Lawyers say federal charges over attempts to overturn election cover 'official responsibilities as president'

Former US president Donald Trump is set to face a jury on March 4 on allegations that he was at the heart of a conspiracy to obstruct the 2020 election. Reuters

Donald Trump on Thursday argued that he was entitled to immunity against federal charges over his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election because he was president at the time.

The immunity claim filed by Mr Trump’s defence team marks his first substantive challenge to the indictment from special counsel Jack Smith’s office, Bloomberg reported.

The former president’s lawyers see the immunity issue as one with potential to reach the US Supreme Court and have said they would likely seek to pause the rest of the case until that is resolved – reopening a fight he previously lost to delay a trial until after the 2024 election.

Mr Trump is set to face a jury on March 4 on allegations that he was at the heart of a conspiracy to obstruct the 2020 election. It is one of four criminal indictments against the former president as he runs for re-election.

The criminal case in Washington focuses on Mr Trump’s final months in office leading up to the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol by thousands of his supporters as Congress met to certify Joe Biden’s win.

His lawyers have asked US District Judge Tanya Chutkan to toss out the indictment, arguing that prosecutors had charged Mr Trump for advocating “election integrity” and that his actions were “at the heart of his official responsibilities as president”.

Mr Trump has previously lost in court after claiming immunity against legal action over his post-election conduct, although those rulings were in the context of civil cases and not criminal ones.

A federal appeals court in Washington heard arguments last December on the immunity issue in a trio of lawsuits filed by congressional Democrats and law enforcement officers seeking to hold Mr Trump liable for the violence at the Capitol but it has yet to rule.

The Supreme Court in the past has held that presidents are entitled to sweeping protection over actions taken within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties.

The fights in the civil January 6 cases have explored whether Mr Trump’s actions, speech and online posts after the election fall under that umbrella. Lower court judges ruled Mr Trump was not covered by the legal shield because he was pursuing “electoral” and “political” goals.

Mr Trump is the first former president to face a federal indictment, so the latest immunity fight again enters uncharted territory.