The legal team representing former President Donald Trump reiterated their stance on a Sunday, contending that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan should excuse herself from hearing the 2020 election-related criminal case against him. This argument is not novel from Trump’s side, and the particular rhetorical style employed on the recent submission was anticipated.
Trump’s lawyers, in a robustly polarizing argument, employed Chutkan’s own maxims against her. They posited that Trump’s political victories could render the case against him vulnerable to the perception of political bias. Consequently, they suggested that Chutkan, known for her severity on January 6th, insurrection cases, should refrain from further presiding over their client’s case.
Hinging on the necessity for public faith in the neutrality of the judicial process, Trump’s legal team stated on the Sunday submission, “The public must have assurance that President Trump’s constitutional rights are being safeguarded by an impartial judicial officer. No president is a king, but every president is a United States citizen entitled to the protections and rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.”
The lawyers incorporated Chutkan’s echoed phrase, “presidents are not kings,” in their argument. This phrase, initially coined by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the current Supreme Court Justice, during a past Trump lawsuit, has become a distinctive tenet of Chutkan’s legal philosophy.
Chutkan herself is entrusted with the decision on whether she will step down from the case. While the likelihood of Trump’s request seems slim within current legal parameters, the filings have potential implications if Trump is convicted and decides to appeal. Recusal requests by defendants place them in a delicate position, as they must question the impartiality of the presiding judge. And the threshold to warrant a recusal is considerably high. Such attempts generally yield little success.
Nevertheless, Trump continues to challenge the federal system case against him and probes Chutkan’s impartiality via court submissions. His legal team casts strong doubt on the judge’s fairness despite Justice Department officials articulating that there’s no evidence of any bias on Chutkan’s part in handling other January 6 cases.
Trump’s legal team underscored public perception’s importance within the proceedings, asserting that an issue of core value is whether the public deems these proceedings authentic, or views them as a politically charged attempt by the incumbent administration to tackle its most formidable political contender. As they declared, public confidence “is not an insignificant consideration, it is the consideration,” asserting that faith in the justice system is paramount for its survival.
Meanwhile, federal prosecutors have urged Chutkan to further restrict Trump from publicly discussing the case and potential witnesses, alleging that his social media onslaughts incite harassment. The judge is considering that request as well.
