Published on
US President Donald Trump is not immune from civil claims that he incited a mob of his supporters to attack the Capitol on 6 January 2021, a federal judge has ruled in one of the last unresolved legal cases stemming from the riot.
District Judge Amit Mehta ruled on Tuesday that Trump’s remarks at his “Stop the Steal” rally, held on the Ellipse near the White House shortly before the siege began, “plausibly” were inciting words that are not protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.
The Republican president is not shielded from liability for much of his conduct surrounding the events, including that speech and many of his social media posts that day, according to the judge.
But Mehta said Trump cannot be held liable for his official acts that day, including his Rose Garden remarks during the riot and his interactions with Justice Department officials.
“President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties,” Mehta wrote.
“The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity.”
The decision is not the court’s first ruling that Trump can be held liable for the violence at the Capitol and it is unlikely to be the last given the near-certainty of an appeal.
But the 79-page ruling sets the stage for a possible civil trial in the same court house where Trump was charged with crimes for his 6 January conduct, before his 2024 re-election ended the prosecution.
Mehta previously refused to dismiss the claims against Trump in a February 2022 ruling that Trump was not entitled to presidential immunity from the claims brought by Democratic members of Congress and law enforcement officers who guarded the Capitol.
In that decision, Mehta also concluded that Trump’s words during his rally speech plausibly amounted to incitement and were not protected by the First Amendment.
The case returned to Mehta after an appeals court ruling upheld his 2022 decision. He said Tuesday’s ruling on immunity falls under a more “rigorous” legal standard at this later stage in the litigation.
Mehta, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, said his latest decision is not a “final pronouncement on immunity for any particular act.”
“President Trump remains free to reassert official-acts immunity as a defence at trial. But the burden will remain his and will be subject to a higher standard of proof,” the judge wrote.
‘Fight like hell’
Trump spoke to a crowd of his supporters at the rally before the mob’s attack disrupted the joint session of Congress for certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory over Trump.
Trump closed out his speech by saying, “We fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Trump’s lawyers argued that his conduct on 6 January meets the threshold for presidential immunity.
The plaintiffs contended that Trump cannot prove he was acting entirely in his official capacity rather than as an office-seeking private individual.
They also said the Supreme Court has held that office-seeking conduct falls outside the scope of presidential immunity.
Additional sources • AP