Lawsuits against Trump over Jan. 6 riot can move forward, appeals court rules

WASHINGTON — Lawsuits against Donald Trump over the riot at the U.S. Capitol can move forward, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, rejecting the former president's bid to dismiss cases accusing him of inciting the violent mob on Jan. 6, 2021.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has rejected Trump's sweeping claims that presidential immunity protects him from liability in the lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers. But the three-judge panel said the 2024 Republican presidential nominee may continue to fight, as the cases progress, to try to prove his actions were taken in his official capacity as president.

Trump has said he cannot be charged over the riot that left dozens of police officers injured. He argued that his words at a rally before the storming of the Capitol related to “matters of public interest” and fell within the scope of absolute presidential immunity.

The decision comes as Trump's lawyers argue he is also immune from prosecution in the separate criminal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, accusing Trump of illegally conspiring to overturn his election loss to President Joe Biden. Smith's team has indicated it will argue at trial that Trump is responsible for the violence at the Capitol and will point to Trump's continued embrace of the Jan. 6 rioters on the campaign trail to argue that he had orchestrated the day's chaos premeditated.

Friday's ruling underscores the challenges Trump faces as he tries to convince courts, and possibly juries, that the actions he took in the lead-up to the riot were part of his official duties as president. The judge presiding over the criminal trial against election subversion, Tanya Chutkan, also rejected that claim in an order released Friday evening.

Although courts have granted presidents broad immunity for their official actions, the justices have made clear that that protection does not extend to just any act or speech by a president. For example, a president running for a second term is not performing the official duties of the presidency if he speaks at a rally funded by his re-election campaign or attends a private fundraiser, the appeals court said.

“He is acting as an office seeker, not an office holder – just like the persons acting against him when they take the very same actions in their competing campaigns to win the very same office,” Justice Sri Srinivasan wrote for the court.

But the court said its decision is not necessarily the final word on the issue of presidential immunity, leaving the door open for Trump to continue fighting the issue. And it took some effort to note that it was not asked to assess whether Trump was responsible for the riot or whether he should be held accountable in court. It also said Trump could still try to argue that his actions were protected by the First Amendment — a claim he has also made in his ongoing criminal case — or are covered by other privileges.

“When these cases are heard in district court, he must be given the opportunity to develop his own facts on the immunity issue if he is to demonstrate that he took the actions alleged in the complaints in his official capacity as president and not in his capacity as president. unofficial capacity as a candidate,” the court said.

Trump could ask the full appeals court to hear the case, or go to the U.S. Supreme Court. A lawyer for Trump, Jesse Binnall, did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment on the ruling. A Trump campaign spokesman called the decision “limited, narrow and procedural.”

“The facts fully demonstrate that on January 6, President Trump was acting on behalf of the American people and carrying out his duties as President of the United States. Furthermore, his admonition that his supporters 'make (their) voices heard in a peaceful and patriotic manner,' along with countless other statements, prove that these Democratic hoaxes are completely worthless,” spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement.

The lawsuits seek civil damages for damages they say they suffered when rioters descended on the Capitol as Congress was meeting to certify Biden's election victory, smashed windows, engaged in hand-to-hand combat with police officers and sent lawmakers into hiding . One of the lawsuits, filed by Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat, alleges that Trump directly incited the violence at the Capitol “and then watched approvingly as the building was overrun.”

Two other lawsuits were also filed, one by other House Democrats and another by officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, both of whom were injured in the riot. Blassingame said Friday that he “couldn't be more committed to pursuing accountability” in the case.

“More than two years later, it is unnerving to hear the same fabrications and dangerous rhetoric that endangered both my life and the lives of my fellow officers on January 6, 2021,” he said in a statement. I hope our case will help put our democracy back on track; It makes it crystal clear that no person, regardless of title or status, is above the rule of law.”

Lawyers from the Justice Department's civil division urged the court earlier this year to allow the cases to proceed, arguing that a president would not be protected by absolute immunity if his words were found to be an “incitement to the threat of private violence”.

The current appeal was decided by a unanimous three-court panel, including Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee who wrote his own concurring opinion.