Federal Court Rebuffs Trump’s Claims Of Presidential Immunity Amid January 6 Lawsuits


A three-judge panel on a federal appeals court has rejected arguments from ex-President Donald Trump claiming far-reaching presidential immunity in response to litigation brought against him over the chaos and violence of January 6, 2021. Participants in that day’s attack on the Capitol themselves have connected their actions to incitement from Trump, who addressed an outdoors crowd in D.C. shortly before the Capitol violence kicked off. Prosecutors in the January 6-tied case against Trump have already previewed plans to use at trial some data ostensibly showing attendees at Trump’s rally then heading to the Capitol complex.

“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, as highlighted by POLITICO. “The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next. And campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office.” Litigation was set to continue however, with appeals possible and with this court themselves having “left the door open for continued efforts by Trump to try to prove that he was acting as president,” POLITICO said.

Underlying litigation preceding this appeals court decision came from officers affected by the violence of January 6 and Democrats in Congress seeking to get Trump held civilly liable for the events. Trump also faces a lawsuit tracing to the longtime romantic partner of fallen officer Brian Sicknick, who died very soon after participating in the defense of the Capitol that day. Medical authorities deemed his death a result of natural causes while not ruling out that preceding events — including the riot, where Sicknick was physically attacked — factored into his overall condition.

The case seeks massive financial penalties on Trump, and filers recently brought to the court’s attention the Colorado ruling that Trump had engaged in insurrection per the Constitutional confines of that idea.