The court left open the possibility that the former president could still prevail in his effort to claim immunity from civil cases seeking to hold him accountable for the violence.
- Share full article
An appeals court ruled that former President Donald J. Trump was acting as a candidate for office, not an officeholder, when he addressed the crowd on Jan. 6 and urged them to march on the Capitol.
A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that civil lawsuits seeking to hold former President Donald J. Trump accountable for the violence that erupted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, can move forward for now, rejecting a broad assertion of immunity that Mr. Trump’s legal team had invoked to try to get the cases dismissed.
But the decision, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, left open the possibility that Mr. Trump could still eventually prevail in his immunity claims after he makes further arguments as to why his fiery speech to supporters near the White House on Jan. 6 should be considered an official act, rather than part of his re-election campaign.
The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution gives presidents immunity from being sued over actions taken as part of their official duties. The lawsuits against Mr. Trump have raised the question of whether his speaking to his supporters about the 2020 election results fell within his official job responsibilities.
Essentially, the appeals court ruled that at this stage of the case, that question has yet to be answered. It said Mr. Trump must be given an opportunity to present factual evidence to rebut the plaintiffs’ claims that the rally was a campaign event — scrutinizing issues like whether campaign officials organized it and campaign funds were used to pay for it.
“Because our decision is not necessarily even the final word on the issue of presidential immunity, we of course express no view on the ultimate merits of the claims against President Trump,” the panel wrote.
The court added: “In the proceedings ahead in the district court, President Trump will have the opportunity to show that his alleged actions in the run-up to and on Jan. 6 were taken in his official capacity as president rather than in his unofficial capacity as presidential candidate.”
Even though the panel’s ruling was a narrow one, it allowed the civil cases to proceed for now in Federal District Court in Washington, adding to the array of legal woes that Mr. Trump is facing as he runs again for president. The ruling comes as Mr. Trump has mounted a parallel effort to get the criminal indictment he faces on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election dismissed based on a similar claim of immunity.
In its 67-page ruling, the panel acknowledged that legal precedents have long protected a president from being sued for actions undertaken as part of his job. But it rejected Mr. Trump’s view that any time a president is speaking about matters of public concern, it should always be considered an official act.
“When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act,” the court said. “The office of the presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next. And campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office.”
In the wake of the Capitol attack, a number of plaintiffs, including members of Congress and police officers who were caught up in the riot, filed a series of suits against Mr. Trump in Washington, blaming him for inciting the mob on Jan. 6 with the speech he gave that day. Mr. Trump sought to have the cases dismissed, claiming, among other things, that he was immune from civil lawsuits.
In February 2022, the trial judge, Amit P. Mehta, rejected Mr. Trump’s arguments, saying that the former president was not shielded by presidential immunity or the First Amendment. Mr. Trump then appealed Judge Mehta’s ruling.
The panel that ruled on Friday included two appointees of Democratic presidents, Judges Sri Srinivasan and Judith W. Rogers, and one who was appointed by Mr. Trump, Judge Gregory G. Katsas.
Alan Feuer covers extremism and political violence for The Times, focusing on the criminal cases involving the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and against former President Donald J. Trump. More about Alan Feuer
Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy. An individual winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting about presidential power, he is also the author of the books “Takeover” and “Power Wars.” More about Charlie Savage
- Share full article
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Source: nytimes.com
