Trump is not worthy of immunity from lawsuits-Justice Department
2023.03.02 14:28
Trump is not worthy of immunity from lawsuits-Justice Department
By Ray Johnson
Budrigannews.com – Because he is accused of inciting “imminent private violence,” the Justice Department asserts that Donald Trump is not entitled to absolute immunity from civil lawsuits seeking to hold him liable for the attack on the US Capitol on January 6.
Attorneys for the government agreed with Trump that presidents should have strong safeguards against being sued for their official duties. However, they disagreed in a newly filed court brief that the allegations in the Jan. 6 cases against the former president warrant immunity at this point. They didn’t say whether they thought he should win or lose on the merits.
Lawyers from the Justice Department wrote that “in the United States’ view, such incitement of imminent private violence would not be within the outer perimeter of the Office of the President of the United States.”
Trump has argued that because his statements leading up to the 2021 assault fell within the “outer perimeter” of his presidential duties, he cannot be sued for them.
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs suing the former president, Joseph Sellers, and Trump attorney Jesse Binnall were not immediately available for comment.
The position taken by the Justice Department runs the risk of legal complications and political backlash. While a federal criminal investigation is ongoing, the government has been drawn into litigation regarding Trump’s involvement in the Capitol insurrection. Taking a position against Trump runs the risk of allegations of political bias because the department has historically embraced a broad interpretation of the constitutional separation of powers, which prevents a current or former president from being sued over official actions.
In a case like this, the government said that presidential immunity would depend on whether the speech in question met the legal standards for inciting violence. This leaves the door open for Trump to try this defense again in the future.
Government attorneys emphasized that the cases in question only involved private, civil claims in a footnote that made reference to the ongoing criminal investigation led by Special Counsel Jack Smith. They stated in their letter that the United States government “does not express any view regarding the potential criminal liability of any person for the events of January 6, 2021, or acts connected with those events.”
Trump’s immunity defense was previously rejected by a federal district judge in response to three lawsuits brought by congressional Democrats and US Capitol Police officers who responded to violence at the Capitol. The lawyers for Trump have pleaded with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to overturn that decision and throw out the claims made against him.
The government’s brief urged the DC Circuit to reject Trump’s “categorical argument” that a president would be immune from being sued for speaking about public issues even if it incited violence. They wrote that the lower court’s decision could be upheld on that “narrow ground” and that the court didn’t have to deal with the more difficult issues of how to distinguish between a president’s “official and electoral speech.”
According to the Justice Department’s brief, “Those are sensitive questions of fundamental importance to the Executive Branch, and this unusual case would be a poor vehicle for resolving them.”
Democrats and those who detest Trump are likely to welcome the Justice Department’s break with him. When it supported Trump’s claim that a federal law that protects government employees from being sued over official duties shielded him from a defamation lawsuit, the department had faced criticism from the left early in the Biden administration; That case is still pending.
The DC Circuit had invited the government to share its viewpoint in a friend-of-the-court brief after a three-judge panel heard arguments in December. The US is not a party to the civil cases that took place on January 6 and had not asked to be involved. Before submitting its brief, the department had requested two extensions, indicating the sensitivity of the political situation as well as the complexities of the law at hand.
Although the position taken by the Justice Department regarding the immunity issue does not guarantee that Trump will prevail, it is a significant setback for his case. The plaintiffs’ and Trump’s legal teams have until March 16 to respond.
Trump argues, citing Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a 1982 decision, that the US Supreme Court has established that immunity applies to any activity that falls within the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official duties. His attorneys say that judges shouldn’t do “content-based analysis” or look into the “political context” of a president’s public speech.
Binnall argued that the immunity might not apply to actions taken by a president that were “purely personal,” but that any remarks made from the “bully pulpit” would be covered during the hearing on Dec. 7 before the DC Circuit. Binnall stated that Trump could not be sued even if he explicitly urged his supporters to “burn Congress down,” in response to a series of hypothetical scenarios posed by the judges.
The plaintiffs have argued that the allegations in their lawsuits, namely that Trump conspired to incite violence and disrupt Congress’s certification of the election results and the peaceful transfer of power, cannot be considered part of his responsibilities as president. They argued that this immunity does not cover everything a president says while in office.
More:
U. S. implementing policy to shift costs of corporate crimes to pockets of executives
Scandal with jury in Murdo murder case in South Carolina
