In a significant development following his recent victory at the Supreme Court, former President Donald Trump's legal team has filed an opening brief with an appeals court, seeking to dismiss his federal election subversion indictment on grounds of presidential immunity. The filing, submitted late on Saturday, argues that Trump cannot be held accountable for his actions as president and that the four-count indictment, which alleges election subversion during the 2020 election, should be thrown out. Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, stated in a lengthy briefing to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that "President Trump has absolute immunity from prosecution for his official acts as President. The indictment alleges only official acts, so it must be dismissed."

This development comes after the Supreme Court declined to expedite the case and bypass the appeals court, a major win for Trump. Special counsel Jack Smith, who is handling the case, had requested the high court to fast-track the matter, arguing that their eventual ruling would likely be challenged by either party. The Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for denying Smith's request. Smith's aim was to prevent any delay in Trump's trial, which was scheduled for March 4, 2024, one day before the Super Tuesday contest involving 16 states.

There are concerns that delaying the election subversion case could benefit Trump. If he buys more time and later regains the presidency in 2024, convicting him on the charges may prove futile due to a president's pardon power and protections from prosecution while in office. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump's indictment, previously rejected the claims of presidential immunity and ruled that Trump was not entitled to a "lifelong get-out-of-jail-free pass." As a result, Trump's lawyers filed an appeal to the DC court, which triggered Smith's unsuccessful attempt to involve the Supreme Court.

The argument of presidential immunity put forth by Trump's team raises constitutional law questions that have yet to be widely tested or settled. Sauer also referenced Trump's impeachment following the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, suggesting that prosecuting him for those actions would amount to "double jeopardy" as outlined in the Fifth Amendment. "A President who is acquitted by the Senate cannot be prosecuted for the acquitted conduct," Sauer wrote, emphasizing that a single unelected prosecutor lacks the authority to challenge the judgment of Congress.

Smith's indictment against Trump centers on a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding on January 6, 2021, and the accompanying schemes to undermine the election. Prosecutors have argued against the notion that Trump's election efforts, such as urging his allies to provide alternate slates of electors or instructing then-Vice President Mike Pence to decertify the results, were part of his official duties as president.

Apart from the time sensitivity of the federal election subversion case, the outcome could have implications for Trump's 13-count indictment in Georgia, related to alleged tampering with the 2020 election. If legal battles over presidential immunity prolong the subversion case, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's hush money case against Trump may become the first of the four indictments to go to trial. The trial for that case is currently scheduled to begin on March 25, 2024, and it involves 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments.

In total, Trump is facing 91 criminal counts across his four indictments. He has pleaded not guilty and denies any wrongdoing. The courts are expected to grapple with numerous legal issues surrounding Trump in the lead-up to the 2024 election. Just last Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Trump from the GOP primary ballot, a decision that his campaign plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.