Dem
47
GOP
53
When the Supreme Court issued its presidential immunity decision in Trump v. U.S., it made a distinction between official acts (immune) and unofficial acts (not immune). The Court also approved of the D.C. Court of Appeals opinion in a civil case against Donald Trump in which the court distinguished between the actions of an office-seeker versus an office-holder. As an example, the Court strongly hinted that Trump's speech on the ellipse on January 6, when he urged his supporters to "fight like hell" and march to the Capitol to stop the certification of the 2020 election, was a campaign speech, given as an office-seeker, not an office-holder. Those actions, then, would be unofficial acts and not covered by presidential immunity.
With that backdrop, we have some developments in the civil lawsuits against Trump by some Capitol police officers and members of Congress who are alleging that Trump is liable for the harm that occurred on January 6 and should pay damages. These suits were filed back in 2021, but thanks to Trump's infamous delay tactics, they have been up and down the appellate ladder before landing back in the U.S. District Court in D.C. before Judge Amit Mehta.
The latest in these cases (which have been combined) is that the court denied Trump's motion for a summary judgment. A summary judgment motion is the last big attempt by the defense to get the case decided without a trial. Trump argued that everything he did was an official act—for which he's immune from being sued—by virtue of having been president when all these things occurred. But Mehta ruled that just sitting in the big chair isn't enough, that there are many times when a sitting president is also a candidate, and that those "candidate" actions are not entitled to any greater protection than any other candidate.
Following from this, the judge ruled that Trump is not automatically entitled to immunity for any of the following acts: (1) his speech at the Ellipse; (2) his calls to state legislators and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" 11,000 more Trump votes; and (3) his involvement in the fake electors scheme. These were all the actions of a candidate for office. Trump can still claim immunity as a defense at trial, but he can't avoid a trial altogether. The judge also ruled that, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in the criminal case, any conversations with the attorney general or the Department of Justice are off-limits and can't be the basis for any of the plaintiffs' claims.
In addition to that, Trump also argued that his Ellipse speech was protected by the First Amendment as political speech. But the court found that under Supreme Court precedent, the president's exhortation to the crowd to "fight like hell...[or] you're not going to have a country anymore" and to immediately "walk down Pennsylvania Avenue" could be incitement for the crowd to break the law. And, as we know, those words had their intended effect.
Finally, the Department of Justice asked the court to let it intervene in the case on Trump's behalf and allow it to substitute the U.S. government in place of Trump as the defendant. This would mean that taxpayers would be on the hook for any damages, not Trump, if those claims went forward. The judge said, in so many words, "uh, no." Since he had just found that the plaintiffs' claims likely involve unofficial, personal acts by candidate Trump, there's no basis for the DoJ to step in and let him off the hook.
So, Trump may yet be held accountable for the violence on January 6. There are still lots more steps, including the inevitable appeal from this ruling, but we're inching our way closer to a trial. In fact, it could happen right around the time of the next presidential election, which the 2028 Republican nominee would surely be just thrilled about. (L)