Civil Suits Hearings Begin in Regards to the Jan. 6 Riot

By Mary Ray

On Monday, Jan. 10, multiple groups gathered in federal court to argue that Donald Trump should be held financially responsible for major damages which arose from the Jan. 6 riot in Washington D.C. Lawyers for members of Congress, police officers, and government watchdog groups spent almost five hours in the United States District Court for Washington, presenting cases against Trump. They argued that his rhetoric was a key spark to initiating the insurrectionists to storm the Capital, and therefore, Trump is liable for the ensuing financial damage. [1]

In contrast, attorneys for the former president, Trump, argued that the statements made by Trump before the Capital riot were protected speech and within his official duties. The attorneys further argue that Trump was acting within his rights as President and that he had no intention to spark the riot when he called upon his supporters to challenge the Senate certification of the 2020 election results. [2]

One of Trump’s lawyers, Jesse Binnall, stated, “There has never been an example of someone successfully being able to sue a president for something that happened during his term of office.” Trump’s lawyers relied on their interpretations of the immunity of the presidency to drive their argument. [3]

The hearing was held before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, a 2014 appointee by then-President, Barack Obama. [4] One of the civil suits against Trump was brought by Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California who also included Donald Trump Jr., Rep. Mo Brooks, and Trump’s former lawyer, Rudy Guiliani in the suit. Swalwell’s suit along with the others, charge that the statements made on and before Jan. 6 qualify as part of a political campaign and as such, are culpable for litigation. [5]

Swalwell’s suit was represented by attorney Joseph M. Sellers, who wrote that: “The First Amendment does not protect the military-style incursion into the Capitol led by the Oath Keepers; nor does it shield Trump and Guiliani’s incendiary remarks, which aroused and mobilized the assembled crowd with the purpose, and having the effect, of violently disrupting official proceedings of Congress.” [6]

Judge Mehta focused on both Trump’s Jan. 6 speech and his silence which lasted for hours following the riot. Mehta repeatedly questioned Binnall about whether the silence from Trump could be seen as approval. Binnall responded by saying, “You can not have a situation where the president is obligated to take certain actions or say certain things or else be subject to litigation.” [7]

Mehta gave little indication on how he would rule on whether a federal jury in Washington may hear claims that Trump and the others mentioned in the civil suits instigated and facilitated the riot on the Capital. However, Mehta did say that he would rule “quickly” on the claims, as well as whether a jury should consider whether Trump and the others can be held legally liable for the injuries sustained by the lawmakers and police officers on Jan. 6. [8]

GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy stated on Wednesday, Jan. 11, that he would not voluntarily speak to the selection committee in regards to the Jan. 6 riot. This refusal will likely incentivize the committee to subpoena him to appear in court. [9]

The refusal came on the same day that the committee sent McCarthy a letter, which requested details for a number of days, including the time before, the day of, and the days following the riot. McCarthy explained his decision, stating that the refusal of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to seat Republicans, selected by McCarthy, on the panel illustrated a lack of legitimacy in the proceedings. [10]

Judge Mehta has been open and honest about his struggles with the issues raised in the suits. The constitutionality of holding a president accountable through the civil courts is at the forefront of the proceedings in Washington. Mehta noted that presidents can only be prosecuted criminally after leaving office, however, the immunity protections granted by the Supreme Court for civil suits are “even broader.” [11]

There are currently at least seven suits filed against Trump by people who were present at the Capital during the attack. [12] Proceedings will continue in the U.S. District Court for Washington.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/us/politics/trump-jan-6-lawsuits.html

[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-attorneys-cite-immunity-jan-lawsuits-tossed-82189324

[3] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-attorneys-cite-immunity-jan-lawsuits-tossed-82189324

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/10/jan6-lawsuits-trump-hearing/

[5] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-attorneys-cite-immunity-jan-lawsuits-tossed-82189324

[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/10/jan6-lawsuits-trump-hearing/

[7] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-attorneys-cite-immunity-jan-lawsuits-tossed-82189324

[8] https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/10/jan6-lawsuits-trump-hearing/

[9] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/12/house-jan-6-riot-committee-seeks-information-from-gop-leader-kevin-mccarthy.html

[10] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/12/house-jan-6-riot-committee-seeks-information-from-gop-leader-kevin-mccarthy.html

[11] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/us/politics/trump-jan-6-lawsuits.html

[12] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/us/politics/trump-jan-6-lawsuits.html