Cable Forum - View Single Post

**Hugh** · 01-12-2023, 17:15

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-app...ck-2023-12-01/

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Dec 1 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled that Donald Trump must face civil lawsuits over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by his supporters, rejecting the former president's claim that he is immune.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that Trump was acting "in his personal capacity as a presidential candidate" when he urged his supporters to march to the Capitol on the day of the riot. U.S. presidents are immune from civil lawsuits only for official actions.

The ruling clears the way for Trump to face lawsuits from U.S. Capitol police officers and Democratic lawmakers seeking to hold Trump responsible for the violence by his supporters during the riot, which was an attempt to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

The case is one of several civil and criminal challenges facing the frontrunner for the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in the 2024 election.

The unanimous decision focused only on whether Trump could be sued, and said nothing about the merits of the cases themselves.

Bit more detail here (no paywall)

https://wapo.st/3Gq9TSj

Quote:

The unanimous decision by a federal appeals court in Washington is expected to be appealed and also offers insight into how the court could view Trump’s argument that presidential immunity also protects him from being charged criminally for his efforts to stay in power after the 2020 election.

“When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act,” Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan wrote for the three-judge panel. “The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next.”…

… At a hearing nearly a year ago, the judges argued about how to distinguish between protected presidential speechmaking and unprotected personal agitating. One judge, a Trump appointee who served in his administration, said during the December 2022 hearing that Trump’s case was complicated because the former president was plausibly accused of instigating violence in his message to supporters.

The “arguable incitement,” Judge Gregory G. Katsas said, “makes this a hard case.”

But in the end, the judges drew the line differently, saying what mattered was not the violence of the rhetoric but the fact that Trump had offered no evidence that his speechifying before and on Jan. 6 were about anything other than his own desire for reelection.

“Trump … has made no argument as to why his actions alleged here should be treated more like the State of the Union than [a] campaign ad,” Srinivasan, an Obama appointee wrote.

Despite agreeing on the decision, all three judges wrote separately — underscoring the unprecedented and complicated questions involved. Katsas joined Srinivasan’s opinion in full, adding that “when the President speaks at campaign events … he normally does so in a private capacity,” although he “may occasionally render official speech even during a typical campaign event.” For example, he said, a president could announce he is replacing a member of the Cabinet during a campaign speech.

The decision will also impact another case in which an additional eight Capitol Police officers are suing Trump over the injuries they suffered during the riot. But Trump is likely to ask the entire D.C. Circuit to hear the case, and then the U.S. Supreme Court.