A court has rejected Trump’s claim that he cannot be criminally prosecuted in a case involving actions he took while president.

In a recent court decision, a panel of three judges rejected former President Donald Trump‘s claim of immunity regarding his involvement in federal election interference.

In this criminal case, the judges ruled that former President Trump is treated like any other citizen, without special immunity. They stressed that he must face the legal consequences for his actions in court.

The ruling stated that former Presidents don’t have immunity from federal criminal charges, and this applies to the current case as well.

The judges disagreed with Trump’s notion that a President can commit crimes without facing consequences or infringe upon citizens’ voting rights. They stressed the importance of upholding election results and safeguarding citizens’ right to vote.

The judges expressed that Trump’s position would endanger our system of government by placing the President above scrutiny from all three branches.

According to Trump’s spokesperson Steven Cheung, Trump doesn’t agree with the court’s decision and intends to appeal it to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution.

The statement highlighted concerns that without immunity, Presidents could face swift charges from the opposing party after leaving office, hindering their ability to effectively fulfill their duties.

A spokesperson for special counsel Jack Smith opted not to comment on the ruling.

During early January, the appellate judges heard arguments concerning Trump’s bid to dismiss the case based on immunity grounds.

Last week, the beginning of Trump’s trial was postponed by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. This delay came after she waited for nearly a month for the appellate court’s decision.

In August, Trump pleaded not guilty to charges related to the 2020 election. He sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that he’s immune from prosecution for actions taken during his presidency.

The former president, present at the Jan. 9 hearing, denied any wrongdoing and labeled the election interference charges as “political persecution.

The appeals court stepped in after the Supreme Court refused to immediately address Trump’s claims of immunity in December. Instead, they let the federal appeals court handle the case first, as requested by Trump’s legal team.

Smith urged the Supreme Court to make a swift decision on whether a former president can face prosecution for actions during their term. If approved, it would mark a significant moment in American history, setting a precedent for future cases.

The judges have allowed Trump until Feb. 12 to request the Supreme Court to halt their decision and address the issue promptly. The timing of the Supreme Court’s response remains uncertain.

Trump has the choice to request a full review of the case by the D.C. Circuit Court. Yet, unless the full court agrees to take it up, the case will return to Judge Chutkan’s trial court.

Trump’s legal team cited a 1982 Supreme Court ruling backing presidential immunity for actions tied to official duties. They acknowledged that a former president could face prosecution for unrelated actions.

Trump also argued that he couldn’t be prosecuted because he wasn’t convicted in impeachment proceedings for the same actions.