The US Department of Justice (DOJ) had stated that former President Donald Trump is not immune from liability in civil lawsuits related to the January 6th, 2021 Capitol riot if his speech before the event “encouraged imminent private violent action and was likely to produce such action.” The DOJ’s comments came in a brief filed on March 2nd, with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
According to the brief, the DOJ was expressing no view on allegations that Trump’s speech incited the riot, but if the allegations were true, he would not be shielded. Trump had previously claimed absolute immunity from civil suits related to the attack on the Capitol. However, the DOJ argued that “no part of a president’s official responsibilities includes the incitement of imminent private violence.”
The civil suits against Trump were filed by 11 Democratic members of the House of Representatives and two Capitol police officers, according to The Washington Post. The suits allege that Trump violated the Ku Klux Klan Act and other laws by inciting the violent mob that stormed the Capitol. During the speech, Trump talked about election fraud and told supporters they had to “fight like hell” or “you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
The DOJ acknowledged that Trump had absolute immunity from damages from his official acts. However, it noted that this did not include the incitement of violence. The department added that a court considering a claim to hold a president liable for violence allegedly connected with his speech should deny absolute immunity only if the speech is viewed objectively. In context, both encouraged imminent private violence and were likely to produce such violence.
The DOJ’s brief represents a significant shift in the legal landscape surrounding the events of January 6th. It has important implications for ongoing investigations and potential future legal action. The brief effectively opens the door for civil suits against Trump related to the Capitol riot, should evidence emerge that his speech incited the violence.
Because Trump had only argued that he had absolute immunity, the appeals court could reject that absolute position “without attempting to comprehensively define the boundaries of the president’s immunity,” the DOJ said. This leaves the possibility that Trump could still be shielded from some civil lawsuits, but only if they relate to his official acts and not to incite violence.
The National Law Journal, Law360, BuzzFeed News, and Reuters have covered the DOJ’s brief. The filing is the latest development in a series of legal battles related to January 6th. Multiple investigations are ongoing, and criminal charges have been brought against hundreds of people in the Capitol riot.
In conclusion, the DOJ’s recent brief represents a significant shift in the legal landscape surrounding the Capitol riot. The department’s stance effectively opens the door for civil suits against Trump related to the January 6th. However, whether evidence will emerge that Trump’s speech incited the violence remains to be seen. The DOJ’s comments have important implications for ongoing investigations and potential future legal action. They also highlight the complex legal questions surrounding the limits of presidential immunity.