President Trump is seeking a dismissal of the case brought against him in Washington D.C. on the grounds that he is constitutionally immune to criminal prosecution or investigation while in office. The lawsuit in question is for alleged violations of the District of Columbia’s anti-corruption laws which prohibits private business from receiving unreported income from foreign governments. The Trump legal team argued in the motion to dismiss, “A President is absolutely immune from criminal process of any kind…and therefore any suit brought against a President in a state or federal court is barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity.” They further state, “That immunity applies to investigations, criminal prosecutions, or civil lawsuits that could result in a financial penalty or other liability.” The Washington D.C. case first came to light in January when Democratic lawyers filed the lawsuit in the District’s Superior Court. Trump’s lawyers argued that the District’s anti-corruption law was designed to target business, not the President. They further contested the District’s assertion that the President must adhere to the same standards as other elected officials who have been prosecuted or sanctioned under the law. The District responded to the motion to dismiss by asking the court to proceed with the case. They argued that the District anti-corruption law applies to the President as much as it applies to any other elected official. Reasonable people can thus conclude that the President needs to adhere to the same standards as his predecessors and not take advantage of his office for personal gain. The lawsuit’s outcome is far from clear and could have serious ramifications for the President’s legal standing. The court could rule that the President is immune from criminal prosecutions, in which case Trump would be spared from any further action. On the other hand, if the court decides that the President is not above the law and has to adhere to the District’s anti-corruption laws, it could set a legal precedent for other legal proceedings the President currently faces. Though the President is other able to evade Team investigations with claims of immunity while in office, the District case highlights Trump’s vulnerability to legal actions taken against him by other entities. The District’s case demonstrates that Trump cannot rely upon the absolute immunity doctrine to evade any such future claims. The court’s decision could be a strong indicator of how the President perceives charges that are brought against him and how he is willing to manage them going forward.