“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, claiming he prompted his supporters to attack. Friday, Mehta wrote that the 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.”
The decision was issued in a trio of lawsuits filed after the January 6 Capitol breach seeking to hold the former President and his allies accountable for the riot.
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 of Trump didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
Role of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers
Mehta also said 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, Donald Trump Jr., and his former attorney Rudy Giuliani, who were named as defendants in some of the cases, but successfully argued that the lawsuit should be thrown out.
The judge indicated he would also eventually dismiss the case against Rep. Mo Brooks, an Alabama Republican, but he wasn’t ready to do that on Friday due to technical reasons related to Brooks’ defense strategy.
They have all denied wrongdoing related to January 6.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
