By Aaron Miller-
Former President Donald Trump is not immune from legal accountability for the violent Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the Justice Department argued Thursday, as it asked an appeals court to reject the former president’s assertion of “absolute immunity” in the face of lawsuits seeking to hold him responsible for his role in the insurrection.
In a long-awaited filing, the Justice Department told the court that speech which incites violence does not fall within the scope of a president’s duties, adding that Trump, therefore, cannot claim immunity from legal accountability on those grounds.
Thursday’s hearing is the first time the department has confronted directly the question of Trump’s civil immunity for his conduct related to January 6. The lawsuits were brought by Democratic members of the House and Capitol Police officers.
Trump has long sort to use the argument of immunity to evade accountability for his reproachable actions which ignited mayhem as Congressmen and women met to certify the election of Joe Biden following the U.S 2020 elections.
The beleaguered former president has a raft of legal suits against him, but is determined to fight allegations connected to the insurrection by using the immunity argument.
A 1982 ruling from the US Supreme Court established that presidents are absolutely immune from civil damages arising from their official acts as president . However, whether the inciteful speech by Tump on January which sparked an insurrection amounts to an official act is a contentious question.
The new filing stressed how difficult the legal disputes around the presidential immunity are, with the Justice Department telling the DC Circuit that in “all contexts, questions of presidential immunity must be approached with the greatest sensitivity to the unremitting demands of the Presidency.”
The Justice Department cautioned the court against using the January 6 civil cases as a vehicle to draw firm lines on whether president can face liability for speech related to electoral or political concerns. Instead, the department asked the DC Circuit to issue a “narrow” ruling, focused solely on the assertion by Trump’s attorneys that he should be immune to civil lawsuits for presidential speech even if that speech incited violence.
The January 6 civil cases are currently at a phase where courts are weighing questions about the legal strength of the claims against Trump, and those courts are not yet considering the factual merits of the allegations against the former president.
A district court judge previously denied a Trump motion to dismiss the case, finding that the former president was not absolutely immune from the civil January 6 lawsuit.
The DC Circuit is now considering a Trump request to reverse that ruling. After hearing arguments on the matter last year, the appeals court invited the Justice Department to weigh in.
“The United States here expresses no view on the district court’s conclusion that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that President Trump’s January 6 speech incited the subsequent attack on the Capitol,” the DOJ said in its brief. “But because actual incitement would be unprotected by absolute immunity even if it came in the context of a speech on matters of public concern, this Court should reject the categorical argument President Trump pressed below and renews on appeal.”
In response to the filing, a Trump spokesperson said, “The D.C. Courts should rule in favor of President Trump in short order and dismiss these frivolous lawsuits.”
Whether Trump can face certain civil lawsuits for his conduct while in the White House has been a tricky ground for the Justice Department to navigate.
The Justice Department, under Attorney General Merrick Garland, came under fire from the left when it held onto the department’s Trump-era position that Trump could not be sued personally for allegedly defaming a woman who accused him of sexual assault. The courts are still considering the question, but if it sides with DOJ, that would force the dismissal of the case, brought by E. Jean Carroll.
In the January 6 civil cases, the department is seeking to take a very precise stance for why Trump could potentially be held liable in the civil lawsuits for his January 6-related conduct.
It is asking the DC Circuit to not issue any ruling that would attempt “to comprehensively define the boundaries of the president’s immunity for his speech on matters of public concern – including when and how to draw a line between the president’s official and electoral speech.”
The Justice Department emphasized it was not weighing in on any potential criminal liability.
In the brief, the department said in a footnote that it “does not express any view regarding the potential criminal liability of any person for the events of January 6, 2021, or acts connected with those events.”
“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,” DOJ argued in a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. “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.”
Trump supporters stand on the U.S. Capitol Police armoured vehicle, as others take over the steps of the Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, as the Congress works to certify the electoral college votes.
The filing comes amid two lawsuits from U.S. Capitol Police officers and lawsuits from 11 Democratic members of Congress arguing that Trump incited mob violence with his speech. Trump has claimed that he is immune from legal accountability because of the absolute immunity granted presidents performing official duties.
A lower court rejected Trump’s argument. The Justice Department in its filing to the federal appeals court urged the three-judge panel of appellate judges to affirm that lower ruling.
The department notably did not take a stance on the veracity of the allegations that Trump incited violence with his speech.
“The United States expresses no view on that conclusion, or on the truth of the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaints. But in the United States’ view, such incitement of imminent private violence would not be within the outer perimeter of the Office of the President of the United States,” the Justice Department said.
The Justice Department said in its filing that its position should not be used to chill a president’s speech and urged the court to issue a “narrow” ruling.