Image source, Getty Images

That's it from us and our live coverage of Trump's latest court ruling. Here's a quick recap of what's happened today:

• A US court ruled Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity
• This means he can be prosecuted on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election
• The three judge ruling says Trump’s stance "would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches"
• Despite the ruling, Trump has continued to argue US presidents must be immune - saying on social media the ruling is "nation-destroying"
• Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung says the DC Circuit court's decision will be appealed
• Trump has until 12 February to take his case to the Supreme Court - and the Supreme Court will then decide whether it wants to intervene

But although this is a defeat for Trump in court, as our North America correspondent writes it's still a win for his strategy to delay his court dates.

You can read our latest write-up here.

Kayla Epstein
Senior journalist

Reaction is rolling in from legal experts who have followed Trump's multiple criminal and civil cases.

"The decision was about as bad as Trump could have expected," said Mitchell Epner, a New York attorney who has kept a close eye on Trump's civil business fraud case.

"The DC Circuit rejected the entire concept of post-term presidential immunity for criminal violations."

The law recognises that presidents have a degree of immunity from civil claims that arise from their official duties, and some legal experts wondered if the DC Circuit would adopt that rule for criminal cases, Epner explained.

In rejecting immunity, they have denied Trump a legal shield from his criminal cases, he said. They also may have removed potential delays to the election case, because the trial court wouldn't have to determine if the actions Trump was indicted for fall under his official duties.

The Supreme Court will have to decide by next week whether it wants to intervene.

This presidential immunity case has indefinitely delayed Donald Trump's federal case related to the 6 January attack on the US Capitol.

Now, Trump has until next Monday to ask the Supreme Court for a stay - meaning a delay until the immunity argument is resolved once and for all.

Otherwise, Trump's trial proceedings can resume, according to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit judges said.

The Supreme Court has the choice of granting a stay, denying a stay or resolving the immunity question themselves right away.

If it chooses the third option - that is, to expedite and weigh the merits of today's ruling - the court will make a decision by June.

But Neal Katyal, a prominent lawyer who has argued cases before the top court, predicted on X (formerly Twitter) that it will not take up the case.

"Trump’s argument is so weak and the Court of Appeals decision so thorough and well done, I can see SCOTUS voting not to hear it," he wrote.

In their 57-page opinion,, external the appeals court touches on Donald Trump's argument that there is a basis for treating presidents differently from other subordinate government officials.

Trump lawyer Dean John Sauer claimed in a January hearing that a president who is not convicted for impeachment by Congress cannot be subject to criminal proceedings. Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives, but acquitted Senate, he noted.

The judges responded on Tuesday that this "interpretation still would leave a president free to commit all manner of crimes with impunity, so long as he is not impeached and convicted".

"Former President Trump’s interpretation also would permit the commission of crimes not readily categorized as impeachable... [and] crimes not discovered until after a president leaves office."

Kayla Epstein
US reporter

This immunity decision could have impacts far beyond Washington.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has charged Trump and several other co-defendants with an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results in the state of Georgia.

That's separate to the federal charges of plotting to overturn the election. And Trump’s lawyers filed a similar immunity argument in that election interference case, too.

In January, his lawyers argued “the indictment is barred by presidential immunity and should be dismissed with prejudice” because, they say, Trump was carrying out his “official responsibilities as president” when the incidents under scrutiny took place.

Today’s ruling gives the judge overseeing in the Georgia case a “roadmap” and “a reason to deny a certificate for appealing on presidential immunity” in the Fulton County case, Anthony Michael Kreis of the Georgia State College of Law posted on X., external

However, this process is far from over. If a higher court eventually sides with Trump on immunity, it could potentially derail the Georgia case.

Image source, Getty Images

One of the arguments Trump put forward to the judges in this case was this: because he was impeached and then acquitted, he cannot be criminally prosecuted because of double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy is a legal principle which means someone cannot be tried twice for the same crime.

But the judges say in their ruling:, external "We disagree."

They say double jeopardy doesn't apply here for two reasons:

1. Because an impeachment does not count as criminal
2. What Trump was impeached for is not the same as his new charges - so it's not the same alleged crime

Trump's team also tried to say that there's a clause in the US Constitution meaning someone who's been impeached can't be criminally prosecuted.

But the judges also disagreed with that.

They say the clause "simply does not speak to such matters" of what happens to someone is acquitted at impeachment. The clause does say what's allowed for people convicted at impeachment - but that doesn't apply because Trump was acquitted twice.

More now from this morning's unanimous court opinion.

The judges argue that "recent historical evidence suggests that former presidents, including President Trump, have not believed themselves to be wholly immune from criminal liability for official acts during their Presidency".

The ruling references the aftermath of Richard Nixon's resignation following the Watergate scandal.

"President Gerald Ford issued a full pardon to former President Richard Nixon, which both former Presidents evidently believed was necessary to avoid Nixon’s post-resignation indictment."

The appeals court also makes note of the actions taken by Bill Clinton to avoid prosecution over his misleading statements about his extramarital relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

"Before leaving office, President Bill Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his law license and a $25,000 fine in exchange for Independent Counsel Robert Ray’s agreement not to file criminal charges against him."

Pointedly, the three judges add that, in Trump's second impeachment in 2021, his own attorneys argued that federal courts had a judicial and investigative process from which "no officeholder is immune".

Let's examine some more of today's 57-page decision from the court., external

A strongly-worded section of the document says "former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches".

"Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the president, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review.

"We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter."

The judges go on to say these concerns led them to conclude there was "no functional justification" for giving former presidents immunity from federal prosecution.

What Trump's team might do nowpublished at 18:45 Greenwich Mean Time 6 February

18:45 GMT 6 February

Anthony Zurcher
BBC North America correspondent

As I wrote earlier, some experts suggest Donald Trump's strategy is to delay his federal trial related to the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol.

If a delay is the goal, there are a few steps Trump's legal team could now follow.

They might request that the full 11-judge DC Circuit Court of Appeals review and reconsider this case. That is unlikely to succeed, however, as six of the eight remaining judges would have to back that decision and obliging such a request is rare.

The appeals court, meanwhile, has ruled that the 6 January case can proceed while such a request is considered. Perhaps in the hope of avoiding further delay.

But Trump has other options at his disposal.

One likely route is he can turn to the Supreme Court, which would have to decide whether to review the case or let the lower-court decision stand. They can also decide whether to put the 6 January trial on hold in the meantime.

If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, the election interference case could return to its normal schedule. But if it agrees to do so, that all but guarantees that a trial would take place under the shadow of election day - at the very earliest.

Image source, Getty Images

Only a handful of Donald Trump's most vocal defenders have so far reacted to this morning's ruling.

The appeals court opinion "sets a dangerous precedent, violates our Constitution, and threatens the very bedrock of our nation", New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik claims.

Stefanik, who is rumoured to be in the running to be Trump's vice-president running mate if he becomes the Republican nominee, adds: "I fully support President Trump's efforts to appeal this unconstitutional ruling to the Supreme Court, where I expect a thoughtful decision to overturn this dangerous precedent."

Ohio congressman Jim Jordan writes on X (formerly Twitter) that the appeals court decision "raises serious concerns" and "is obviously something that will need to be addressed on appeal".

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Trump backer in Congress, ignored the merits of the ruling entirely.

"God bless President Trump for saying we should care about our elections!" she yelled at a news conference alongside colleagues.

Sam Cabral
US reporter

Several legal analysts have commented on the thorough and methodical nature of today's ruling against Donald Trump.

Patrick Cotter, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, agrees with that assessment, but says the public may not be able to fully digest the weight of the opinion.

"What the Court of Appeals said, very politely and very dryly, is 'You're not even close, Trump'. None of these arguments pass the laugh test," he tells the BBC.

Cotter is referring to an expression used by lawyers where you test how serious an argument is by determining if it makes you want to laugh or not.

"I actually felt the court was straining to try and restate his arguments in a way that didn't make them sound so idiotic.

"It makes the point very simply that there's no legal or historical precedent for holding that a president is somehow immune from the criminal law."

Cotter adds that Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court should be "dead on arrival" from a legal perspective, but the top court has shown that it is politically minded and willing to overturn precedent, so a reversal is not out of the question.

A defeat in court - but a win if Trump's strategy is delay, delay, delaypublished at 18:03 Greenwich Mean Time 6 February

18:03 GMT 6 February

Anthony Zurcher
BBC North America correspondent

Image source, EPA

Donald Trump has been handed a defeat in court - but one that comes with a generous helping of victory.

While Trump did not successfully assert sweeping new presidential powers to act with impunity while in office, the time it took to issue that decision has indefinitely delayed Trump's federal trial related to the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol.

The tentative 4 March start date in Washington DC has been removed from the federal court's calendar.

And there is no indication of when it might reappear.

This is in keeping with the former president's strategy of throwing sand in the gears of the judicial process whenever possible, says Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor.

"It's in Trump's interest to delay the case until after the November election," Rahmani said.

"If he wins control of the White House, a sitting president can't be prosecuted."

Let's look at some more text from the judges' ruling.

They specifically mentioned the allegations made against Donald Trump regarding attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

"Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government," the document states., external

"He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the president has no role - the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes - thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of the Congress."

Trump, 77, denies any wrongdoing.

Image source, Getty Images

Donald Trump posted on his social media platform a few minutes ago, once again repeating his claim that presidents must have full immunity.

"A nation-destroying ruling like this cannot be allowed to stand," he says.

He goes on to say a president "will be afraid to act for fear of the opposite party’s vicious retribution after leaving office".

Today's ruling sets the stage for the election meddling case against Donald Trump to head to trial before the November presidential election.

"I don't think people have a proper appreciation for the size, scope and spectacle this trial would be," says Scott MacFarlane, a correspondent for the BBC's US partner, CBS News.

"Unlike the civil cases in New York, he can't come and go as he pleases.

"He's a criminal defendant. He'd have to be here in the court every day for weeks at a time. That in itself is a spectacle."

MacFarlane adds that, unlike the cases involving hush money payments or classified documents, this one - about Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which led to the January 6 Capitol riot - is the case with which Americans are most familiar.

"It has the potential for jaw-dropping, visceral moments," he says.

"And it's going to shutter most of the nation's capital for security reasons."

Nomia Iqbal
Reporting from Washington, DC

This is a major setback for the former President – who is facing more than 90 charges in multiple cases.

This ruling relates to the election subversion case which was due to be held in Washington next month.

His lawyers’ argument hinged on the idea that because Donald Trump wasn't convicted for impeachment by Congress, he can’t face criminal proceedings.

But the three judges on the panel were sceptical - arguing that with immunity, a president could sell state secrets or order the assassination of a political rival and not face any criminal consequences.

They ruled that for the purposes of this case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump and should be treated like any other criminal defendant.

Trump's team said they would appeal against the ruling – and now have 90 days to take their case to the US Supreme Court.

The actual trial date has huge political ramifications.

Trump - who is trying to return to the White House - is hoping it will be delayed until after the Presidential election in November.

Sam Cabral
US reporter

Image source, Getty Images

Jack Smith is the special counsel who indicted Donald Trump over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

He has also indicted the ex-president on 40 felony counts over his alleged mishandling of classified documents.

A Harvard Law School graduate, he began his prosecutorial career in 1994 as an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district attorney's office.

Over the next decade, he climbed up the ranks of the US attorney's office in Brooklyn, where he pursued violent gangs, white-collar fraudsters and public corruption cases.

In 2008, Smith went overseas to The Hague in the Netherlands where he oversaw war crimes investigations as a junior investigator for the International Criminal Court.

He returned to the US justice department two years later as chief of the department's public integrity unit, which prosecutes federal crimes such as public bribery and election fraud.

You can read more about Smith here.

Donald Trump has already sent a fundraising email to his supporters, calling for them to "chip in" to end what he is calling a "witch hunt".

The email is titled - "Breaking from President Trump", and it tells supporters "moments ago, federal judges just ruled that I have no presidential immunity".

It goes on to say "they won't stop until they have complete control".

Trump has frequently used his various legal issues to drum up support and cash for his 2024 presidential campaign.

He sent a similar fundraising plea earlier this year while he was on his way to the DC court to attend a hearing on this same immunity case.

Sam Cabral
US reporter

Image source, Getty Images

The appellate court's ruling comes five weeks after the three-judge panel heard arguments at a hearing in Washington DC.

People were wondering why it was taking so long, but now we know why, says Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor.

"It's a pretty thoroughgoing rejection of the immunity arguments that Trump's lawyers tried to make," he tells the BBC.

Tobias also notes the "very organised" nature of Tuesday's opinion.

"The court refutes [the arguments] with history and relevant precedents to the extent that they are applicable."

Tobias expects the Supreme Court will eventually get the case and, given its importance, the justices will want to weigh in themselves.

Steven Cheung, Trump's campaign spokesman, has just given a statement on the court's decision.

"If immunity is not granted to a President, every future President who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party. Without complete immunity, a President of the United States would not be able to properly function!" he says.

"Prosecuting a President for official acts violates the Constitution and threatens the bedrock of our Republic. President Trump respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit’s decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution."