Judge says Trump could be culpable for January 6 and says lawsuits against the former President can proceed
Civil lawsuits seeking to hold Donald Trump accountable for the January 6, 2021, insurrection can move forward in court, a federal judge said Friday in a ruling outlining how the former President could conceivably be responsible for inciting the attack on the US Capitol.
Trump's statements to his supporters before the riot "is the essence of civil conspiracy," Judge Amit Mehta wrote in a 112-page opinion,
because Trump spoke about himself and rallygoers working "towards a
common goal" of fighting and walking down Pennsylvania Avenue.
"The President's January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action," Mehta said.
Democratic
members of the House and police officers who defended the US Capitol on
January 6 sued Trump last year, claiming he prompted his supporters to
attack. Friday, Mehta wrote that the three lawsuits could move to the
evidence-gathering phase and toward a trial -- a major loss in court for
Trump.
"To
deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step. The
court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged
facts of this case are without precedent," Mehta wrote.
"After
all, the President's actions here do not relate to his duties of
faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign affairs, commanding
the armed forces, or managing the Executive Branch," Mehta added. "They
entirely concern his efforts to remain in office for a second term.
These are unofficial acts, so the separation-of-powers concerns that
justify the President's broad immunity are not present here."
While
he homed in on Trump's legal liability, the judge ruled in favor of
three close allies to Trump who also spoke at the rally on January 6 --
his attorney Rudy Giuliani, his son Donald Trump Jr. and Republican Rep.
Mo Brooks, saying he would dismiss the claims against them.
When
the Senate failed to convict Trump last year in the impeachment
proceedings examining his role in the attack, Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell -- who voted against convicting Trump -- noted that "civil litigation" was an avenue through which Trump's conduct could be addressed.
Two of the lawsuits were brought by Democratic House members, while a third was filed by Capitol Police officers.
The
lawmakers allege that they were threatened by Trump and others as part
of a conspiracy to stop the congressional session that would certify the
2020 presidential election on January 6, 2021, according to the
complaints. They argue that Trump should bear responsibility for
directing the assaults.
Trump's
legal team is likely to appeal the decision, which was made at the
trial-level DC District Court. Representatives for Trump didn't
immediately respond to requests for comment.
Mehta's
ruling on what he calls a "one-of-a-kind case" sets up a rare instance
where the former President could face concrete consequences for the
insurrection.
But
Mehta's opinion, essentially melting away the protections of the
presidency and the First Amendment because of the context of Trump's
speech and specific words and actions that day, could have further
implications, including creating a new avenue to subpoena Trump and ask
him questions and establishing where immunity for presidents ends.
At
this time, there are no public indications that the Justice
Department's criminal investigation into January 6, which includes
several sets of conspiracy charges and a sedition case, has reached
Trump. And after Republican lawmakers blocked Trump's impeachment
conviction, the GOP has largely fallen back in line behind the former
President. The two House Republicans now serving on the committee to
investigate the insurrection have faced calls for their ouster from the
party, and Trump may very well be Republicans' 2024 nominee for the
White House.
The
decision, Friday, however, sets in motion a path to the judge weighing
the factual allegations and evidence against Trump in the cases as well
as possible civil trials months or years from now, where Trump is at the
defense table.
Lawyers
for the Democratic lawmakers and police were elated with the ruling
Friday, though they likely face a long road of additional court tangles
ahead.
"Today
is a major victory for the rule of law, and demonstrates just how
important the courts are for ensuring accountability," said Joseph
Sellers, who represents a group of Democratic members of Congress that
was first to allege a civil conspiracy against Trump in court.
The
NAACP, working alongside Sellers, also applauded the ruling, and the
group's president Derrick Johnson called for accountability for Trump
and the right-wing groups.
Matthew
Kaiser, a lawyer for Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, called it a "great
ruling" to potentially be able to take Trump to trial.
And Patrick Malone, representing the police officers, called it a victory for democracy.
"It's
good to see that no one is above the law. Everyone should be held
accountable for their actions," Malone's client, the Capitol Police
Officer James Blassingame Jr., said in a statement.
Role of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers
Mehta
wrote that it's plausible the lawsuit could prove Trump entered into an
agreement with far-right groups the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers,
who are criminally charged for conspiracy and also named in the lawsuit.
The
judge noted how Trump told the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by"
at a debate before the election, and that he likely was aware of the
Oath Keepers attending his rallies and of violence planned because of
his election loss.
"It
is reasonable to infer that the President knew that these were militia
groups and that they were prepared to partake in violence for him," the
judge said. "The President thus plausibly would have known that a call
for violence would be carried out by militia groups and other
supporters."
The
cases will proceed against the Oath Keepers organization and against
Enrique Tarrio, the recently incarcerated leader of the Proud Boys. They
sought to get the case dismissed but the judge concluded that the
allegations -- of a conspiracy between Trump and the extremist groups
and leaders -- were plausible enough to allow the litigation to move
forward.
Partial victory for other Trump allies
Some of his allies who were named as co-defendants succeeded in getting the civil suits against them dismissed.
This
includes his eldest son and his former attorney, who were named as
defendants in some of the cases, but successfully argued that the
lawsuits should be thrown out.
The judge indicated he would also eventually dismiss the case against Brooks, an Alabama Republican.
They have all denied wrongdoing related to January 6.
In
the ruling, Mehta said the case against Brooks was weak enough that he
would simply dismiss it if he asked him to do so, teeing up the
congressman for a victory.
"Brooks's
remarks on January 6th were political speech protected by the First
Amendment for which he cannot be subject to liability," Mehta wrote.
But
Mehta on Friday sidestepped the question of whether Brooks should have
been protected in the litigation by the Justice Department -- because,
according to the congressman, he was acting in his official duties as an
elected official when he spoke at the Trump rally before the riot.
The
Justice Department so far has refused to protect Brooks, a revealing
position for the agency that is conducting its own sweeping
investigation of January 6.
The
Department argued that Brooks' role at the rally was "campaign
activity" and not related to his official duties. Still, Brooks had
asked Mehta to rule that he was acting as a government official and thus
shield him from liability. Mehta said on Friday he would defer deciding
on that issue.
Judge: Giuliani conspired to peddle disinformation
Regarding
Giuliani, the judge said "there is little doubt" that he "was involved
in a conspiracy" to peddle disinformation about the 2020 election -- but
that he couldn't be held liable for the laws at issue in this lawsuit.
Democrats
and police officers who filed the lawsuits "fall short" of establishing
that Giuliani directly conspired to stop Congress from certifying the
election on January 6 by force or intimidation, Mehta ruled.
Even
though Giuliani spoke at the "Save America" rally before the riot, and
told the crowd, "Let's have trial by combat," the judge ruled that those
comments weren't strong enough to establish a conspiracy.
"Critically,
Giuliani uttered no words that resembled a call to action. 'Trial by
combat' was not accompanied by a direction to do anything," Mehta wrote,
calling it "constitutionally protected speech," and pointing out that
Giuliani didn't know Trump would direct his supporters to march on the
Capitol.
The judge said the allegations against Trump Jr. were even weaker, and thus should be dismissed.
"The
allegations against Trump Jr. are insufficient to make him a
co-conspirator in a plan to disrupt Congress from performing its
duties," Mehta wrote.
That
situation was much different than Trump's -- who not only spoke about
the crowd marching to the Capitol and fighting, but also failed to tell
his rioting supporters to stand down as the violence unfolded. Instead,
Trump criticized then-Vice President Mike Pence, presiding over the
electoral college certification, on Twitter, 12 minutes into the attack.
"When
the President said to the crowd at the end of his remarks, 'We fight.
We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to
have a country anymore,' moments before instructing them to march to
the Capitol, the President's speech plausibly crossed the line into
unprotected territory," Mehta wrote.
This story has been updated with additional details.
No comments