In the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, among those who filed lawsuits against Donald Trump were police officers injured during the insurrectionist violence. The former president and his lawyers have responded to the ongoing civil suits by insisting that he has “absolute immunity” in actions related to his term in office.
About a year ago, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta rejected the argument, ruling that Trump could be held liable for damages. “To deny a president immunity from civil damages is no small step. The court well understands the gravity of its decision,” the jurist wrote in his decision. “But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent, and the court believes that its decision is consistent with the purposes behind such immunity.”
The Republican and his legal defense team, not surprisingly, appealed the ruling, hoping to convince the D.C. Circuit of Appeals that the “absolute immunity” has merit. It was against this backdrop that the Justice Department decided to weigh in — concluding that police officers can, in fact, sue Trump. NBC News reported:
Attorneys for the Justice Department’s Civil Division said in a court filing in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that Trump does not have absolute immunity from multiple civil lawsuits, filed by police officers and members of Congress, that seek to hold him liable for damages stemming from the riot.
“Speaking to the public on matters of public concern is a traditional function of the presidency, and the outer perimeter of the president’s office includes a vast realm of such speech,” the brief said. “But that traditional function is one of public communication. It does not include incitement of imminent private violence of the sort the district court found that plaintiffs’ complaints have plausibly alleged here.”
At first blush, this might seem unremarkable, but as a general matter, the Justice Department — a part of the…
Read the full article here
