In one of his many trials, former president Donald Trump had his claim to immunity rejected by the D.C. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals. The ruling asserts that despite the president’s stature, they must be subject to oversight and checks by the other branches of government.

Trump is staring down the barrel of four legal cases this election year, with the accusations ranging from paying to cover up a sex scandal to encouraging a riot to overturn the 2020 election. This specific ruling concerns Trump’s relationship with the 2020 election, including the Capitol insurrection that followed it.

Trump’s lawyers raised the argument that his sitting position as president at the time of his efforts gave him blanket immunity from prosecution regarding the insurrection. So far, the Court’s answers have rejected that claim.

Article II of the Constitution, which lays out the executive branch, has been interpreted in court cases to allow the president to enjoy immunity from civil liability while they are in office.

What the Appeals Court has said is that former president Trump cannot use this provision as a shield now that he is out of office. “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” the Court said.

The Court added that “Former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant.”

The decision at the appellate level strengthened the system of checks and balances because being the president shouldn’t protect someone from punishment for misconduct. If presidents were immune from prosecution, we would have an overlord — a king just like the one the Founding Fathers fought to get away from.

Another argument that Trump’s lawyers made was that since the second impeachment charged him with “inciting an insurrection,” prosecuting him criminally for the same reason would Trump subject to double jeopardy. However, judges ruled that impeachment is not the same as criminal prosecution. 

By claiming that Trump would be permitted presidential immunity, his lawyers do not just neuter the power of our judicial system, but also limit the power of the people since the case concerns the right of the people to get the president they voted for.

If a former president is permitted to evade persecution in election overturning, they can just as easily remove “former” from their title and take the Oval Office by force. Whether or not the Court finds Trump guilty of attempting to overthrow the election, it should be expected that he is held liable for a guilty verdict.

The proceeding of this case is just one of the examples of how American democracy was set up to function. Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, hoping to find a different answer. With the election approaching and Trump on the ballot, it’s expected that the Court will take the case soon and American citizens will be able to see whether the system of checks and balances works as it should.