Judge Lets January 6 Lawsuits Against Trump Move Forward—But Dismisses Case Against Giuliani And Don Jr.

Topline

Lawsuits brought against former President Donald Trump seeking to hold him liable for the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol can move forward, a federal judge ruled Friday—as can challenges against the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boy leader Enrico Tarrio—but the judge dismissed claims against attorney Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump Jr.

President Donald Trump arrives at the “Stop The Steal” Rally on January 06, 2021 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images

Key Facts

U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled on multiple lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and Capitol Police officers against Trump and his allies, which were consolidated into a single case.

Mehta shot down Trump’s claim that he has “absolute immunity” from legal liability for allegedly inciting the riot because his public statements contesting the election fell within his presidential responsibilities, finding Trump’s legal argument was “misleading and wrong as a matter of law.”

The judge ruled there was sufficient evidence that Trump’s speech at a rally prior to the attack could constitute a “plausible conspiracy,” as were the Oath Keepers and Tarrio’s actions, meaning the cases against them can move forward.

Trump’s speech was made with the goal of blocking Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote and the then-president should have understood it would be taken “as a call to action” by his supporters, Mehta ruled.

The judge was unpersuaded by Trump’s arguments that his speech was protected under the First Amendment, saying “it’s plausible” it was unlawful “words of incitement.”

However, the judge ruled that Giuliani and Trump Jr.’s speeches at the same rally were protected because they “uttered no words that resembled a call to action” and would make them legally liable, including when Giuliani called for “trial by combat.”

Crucial Quote

“It is at least plausible to infer that, when he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol, the President did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers’ efforts to certify the Electoral College votes,” Mehta wrote. “The Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and others who forced their way into the Capitol building plainly shared in that unlawful goal.”

Chief Critic

Trump’s attorney has not yet responded to a request for comment, but the ex-president has decried the lawsuits brought against him, and his attorneys alleged in their motion to dismiss a lawsuit from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) that the litigation was an attempt to turn “important and historic civil rights statutes into political weapons to weaken critical constitutional protections.”

Tangent

Mehta also weighed the litigation as it applied to Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), who was also sued for his speech ahead of the Capitol attack, during which he said, “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass!” Brooks asked the court to substitute the United States as the defendant in the case instead of him, which the Westfall Act allows if a federal employee “was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which [a] claim arose.” Mehta denied that motion, but said if Brooks files a separate motion to dismiss he’ll grant it, ruling that, like Giuliani and Trump Jr., the lawmaker’s “remarks on January 6th were political speech protected by the First Amendment for which he cannot be subject to liability.”

Key Background

Mehta’s ruling concerned Swalwell’s case, a separate lawsuit brought by more than 10 House Democrats and a third suit brought by two Capitol police officers. Additional police-led lawsuits against the president are moving forward separately in court. The lawsuits seek to hold Trump and his allies liable for the trauma the events of January 6 brought the members of Congress and officers, who were present at the Capitol building at the time of the attack, as well as for how it interfered with lawmakers’ efforts to certify the presidential election result. The plaintiffs have alleged Trump helped incite the January 6 attack based on his efforts to overturn the presidential election—particularly through his statements made at the January 6 rally, such as telling his supporters to “fight like hell” and saying they could “go by very different rules” to challenge the vote count. “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Trump told his supporters before directing them to march to the Capitol.