Lawsuits against Donald Trump over the riot at the US Capitol can proceed, a federal appeals court has ruled

on

On Friday, he rejected the former president’s bid to dismiss the cases accusing him of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, mob violence.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has rejected Trump’s sweeping claims that presidential immunity protects him from liability in the lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers. But the three-judge panel said the 2024 Republican presidential primary front

–

Runner may continue to fight, as cases progress, to try to prove that his actions were taken in his official capacity as president.

Trump has said he cannot be charged over the riot that left dozens of police officers injured. He argued that his words at a rally before the storming of the Capitol concerned issues of public interest and fall within the scope of absolute presidential immunity.

The decision comes as Trump’s lawyers argue he is also immune from prosecution in the separate criminal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, accusing Trump of illegally plotting to overturn his election loss to the president.

Joe

Biden. Smith’s team has indicated it will argue at trial that Trump is responsible for the violence at the Capitol and will point to Trump’s continued embrace of the Jan. 6 rioters on the campaign trail to argue that he had orchestrated the day’s chaos premeditated.

Friday’s ruling underscores the challenges Trump faces as he tries to convince courts, and possibly juries, that the actions he took in the lead-up to the riot were part of his official duties as president. The judge presiding over the criminal trial of the Capitol riot is also expected to dismiss that claim.

Although courts have granted presidents broad immunity for their official actions, the justices have made clear that that protection does not extend to just any act or speech by a president. For example, a president running for a second term is not performing the official duties of the presidency if he speaks at a rally funded by his re-election campaign or attends a private fundraiser, the appeals court said.

“He is acting as an office seeker and not as an office holder, just like the persons acting against him when they take exactly the same actions in their competitive campaigns to attain the very same office,” Justice Sri Srinivasan wrote for the court.

But the court said its decision is not necessarily the final word on the issue of presidential immunity, leaving the door open for Trump to continue fighting the issue. And it took some effort to note that it was not asked to assess whether Trump was responsible for the riot or whether he should be held accountable in court. It also said Trump could still claim his actions were protected by the

First 1st

Modification of a claim that he has also filed in his ongoing criminal case or that falls under other privileges.

When these cases are heard in the district court, he must be given the opportunity to develop his own facts on the issue of immunity if he is to demonstrate that he took the actions alleged in the complaints in his official capacity as President and not in his unofficial capacity. capacity as a candidate, according to the court.

Trump could ask the full appeals court to hear the case or go to the U.S. Supreme Court. A lawyer for Trump, Jesse Binnall, did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment on the ruling. A Trump campaign spokesman called the decision limited, narrow and procedural.

The facts clearly show that on January 6, President Trump was acting on behalf of the American people and carrying out his duties as President of the United States. Moreover, his admonition makes his followers peaceful and patriotic [their] The voices heard, along with countless other statements, prove that these Democratic hoaxes are completely worthless, spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement.

The lawsuits seek civil damages for damages they say they suffered when rioters descended on the Capitol as Congress was meeting to certify Biden’s election victory, smashed windows, engaged in hand-to-hand combat with police officers and ejected lawmakers to to go into hiding. One of the lawsuits, filed by Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat, alleges that Trump directly initiated the violence at the Capitol “and then watched approvingly as the building was overrun.”

Two other lawsuits were also filed, one by other House Democrats and another by officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, both of whom were injured in the riot. Blassingame said Friday he could not be more committed to pursuing accountability in the case.

More than two years later, it is unnerving to hear the same fabrications and dangerous rhetoric that endangered both my life and the lives of my fellow officers on January 6, 2021,” he said in a statement. I hope our case will help put our democracy back on track; It makes it crystal clear that no person, regardless of title or status, is above the rule of law.

Lawyers from the Justice Department’s civil division urged the court earlier this year to allow the cases to proceed, arguing that a president would not be protected by absolute immunity if his words were found to have been an instigator to the threat of private violence.

The current appeal was decided by a unanimous three-court panel, including Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee.

was the author of

his own competing opinion.