While the legal team of former President Donald Trump continues to await what might come from the duel investigations into how culpable he may have been for the Capitol riots of January 6, 2021 – one happening very publicly in Congress and another occurring privately at the Department of Justice – they continue to assert that the ex-Commander-in-Chief should have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits stemming from that day’s events.
Among the civil suits pending against Trump: two separate suits brought by Capitol Police officers who allege injuries stemming from their roles in quelling the riots as well as legal action brought by Democratic congresspeople.
So far, Trump’s legal team has been largely unsuccessful in convincing the courts his Presidential immunity should be in play. In February, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Trump’s actions on January 6 were as a candidate running for re-election and that the actions subject to the lawsuit were not official Presidential duties, though he did not outright dismiss all of Trump’s challenges.
Trump’s lawyers filed another legal brief this week with the U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia that asks for Mehta’s ruling to be overturned, saying Trump’s remarks should have no bearing on the application of immunity.
“Examining the contents of a tweet or speech constitutes an intrusion on the executive,” the brief reads.
At the core of the argument is a Supreme Court decision from 1982 that dismissed a lawsuit against former President Richard Nixon. That decision said actions even at the “outer perimeter” of official Presidential duties are immune from civil legal action, and Trump’s lawyers are seeking to categorize his speech at the January 6 rally prior to the riots in this manner, writing that he was “engaged in an open discussion and debate about the integrity of the 2020 election.”
“The actions of the rioters do not strip President Trump of immunity,” the brief reads.
In his February ruling rejecting that tact of defense, Mehta wrote that Trump’s rally speech was “akin to telling an excited mob that corn dealers starve the poor in front of the corn dealer’s home.” He also took into account a tweet Trump wrote that day in the midst of the riot that attacked his Vice President Mike Pence, saying it showed “tacit agreement” from Trump with the violent offenders on the D.C. street and in the Capitol.
Those actions “do not relate to his duties of faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign affairs, commanding the armed forces, or managing the Executive Branch,” Mehta said. “They entirely concern his efforts to remain in office for a second term. These are unofficial acts.”
Trump’s legal team is asking for an oral hearing of their appeal. There has been no response as of yet from the plaintiffs.
LISTEN on the Audacy App
Sign Up and Follow Audacy
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram