Federal District Judge Amit Mehta heard arguments over whether former President Donald Trump is protected by absolute presidential immunity from civil suits accusing him of encouraging the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump's lawyers say his remarks and actions were part of official duties; plaintiffs counter that he acted as an office-seeking private individual, which the Supreme Court has said is not covered by immunity. Judge Mehta reserved ruling, saying the submissions gave him "a lot to think about." The case, brought by Rep. Bennie Thompson and other Democratic lawmakers, survived efforts to halt related prosecutions.
Judge Weighs Trump’s Claim Of Presidential Immunity In Jan. 6 Civil Case
FILE - Rioters loyal to President Donald Trump rally at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)
WASHINGTON — A federal judge heard extensive arguments Friday over whether former President Donald Trump is entitled to absolute presidential immunity from civil lawsuits that allege he encouraged the mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta did not rule from the bench after attorneys for Trump and lawyers for Democratic members of Congress presented competing views about whether the former president’s words and actions fall within the scope of official presidential duties.
Arguments From Both Sides
Trump’s lawyers told the court that his conduct leading up to and on Jan. 6 was part of his official role and therefore protected by presidential immunity. "The entire point of immunity is to give the president clarity to speak in the moment as the commander-in-chief," attorney Joshua Halpern said.
By contrast, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that Trump has not shown he acted solely in an official capacity rather than as a private, office-seeking individual. They cited Supreme Court precedent holding that conduct aimed at retaining office is not shielded by absolute presidential immunity.
FILE - President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)
“President Trump has the burden of proof here,” plaintiffs’ attorney Joseph Sellers told the court. “We submit that he hasn't come anywhere close to satisfying that burden.”
Case Background And Stakes
The suit was originally filed by Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and names Trump, his then-personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani and members of extremist groups including the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Other Democratic lawmakers later joined the litigation.
The civil claims have persisted despite broad clemency measures taken by Trump that sought to address criminal cases tied to the Capitol siege. More than 100 law enforcement officers were injured defending the Capitol during the riot.
At the hearing’s conclusion, Judge Mehta said the arguments gave him "a lot to think about" and that he would issue a ruling as soon as he could. The decision could shape legal limits on presidential speech and actions during disputed elections and other high-stakes political moments.
Why it matters: The court’s ruling will test the boundaries of presidential immunity and could determine whether former presidents can be held civilly accountable for conduct tied to efforts to influence or remain in office.
