The January 6 Civil Cases Are Not Going To Be Injudiced by the Subpoena Appeals Against Donald J. Warrington
The January 6 civil cases are currently at a stage where courts are questioning the validity of the claims, but they are not yet considering the factual merits of the allegations. A district court judge found that the former president was not immune from the civil lawsuit.
The suit says that former presidents have willingly given testimony or documents in response to congressional subpoenas, but no president has ever been compelled to do so.
“Long-held precedent and practice maintain that separation of powers prohibits Congress from compelling a President to testify before it,” Trump attorney David A. Warrington said in a statement announcing Trump’s intentions.
Warrington said Trump had engaged with the committee “in a good faith effort to resolve these concerns consistent with Executive Branch prerogatives and separation of powers,” but said the panel “insists on pursuing a political path, leaving President Trump with no choice but to involve the third branch, the judicial branch, in this dispute between the executive and legislative branches.”
The committee did not make a comment on the filing which came days before the deadline. The committee is scheduled to disband at the end of the legislative session in January, and the suit is likely to make it impossible for Trump to testify.
The letter also outlined a sweeping request for documents, including personal communications between Trump and members of Congress as well as extremist groups. Trump’s response to that request was due last week, but the nine-member panel extended its deadline to this week.
The request spanned from September 1, 2020, two months before the election, all the way to the present day, with documents relating to the president’s dealings with groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.
The DC Circuit is Reviewing President Trump’s January 6 Speech for Defaming a Woman Accused of Sexual Affection
The DC Circuit is now considering a Trump request to reverse that ruling. After hearing arguments on the matter last year, the appeals court invited the Justice Department to weigh in.
The January 6 civil cases were caution by the Justice Department not to draw firm lines on whether the president can face liability for speech related to electoral or political concerns. Instead, the department asked the DC Circuit to issue a “narrow” ruling, focused solely on the assertion by Trump’s attorneys that he should be immune to civil lawsuits for presidential speech even if that speech incited violence.
A 1982 ruling from the US Supreme Court established that presidents are absolutely immune from civil damages arising from their official acts as president – but when presidential speech amounts to an official act is still a murky question for the courts.
“The United States here expresses no view on the district court’s conclusion that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that President Trump’s January 6 speech incited the subsequent attack on the Capitol,” the DOJ said in its brief. “But because actual incitement would be unprotected by absolute immunity even if it came in the context of a speech on matters of public concern, this Court should reject the categorical argument President Trump pressed below and renews on appeal.”
The Justice Department, under Attorney General Merrick Garland, came under fire from the left when it held onto the department’s Trump-era position that Trump could not be sued personally for allegedly defaming a woman who accused him of sexual assault. The courts are still considering the question, but if they side with DOJ it would force the dismissal of the case.
It is asking the DC Circuit to not issue any ruling that would attempt “to comprehensively define the boundaries of the president’s immunity for his speech on matters of public concern – including when and how to draw a line between the president’s official and electoral speech.”
In the brief, the department said in a footnote that it “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.”
It’s possible that the appeals court will side with the Justice Department and allow the lawsuit to proceed.
The Times’ Independent Reporter’s View on Politics and Political Campaigns in the Context of Freedom and Freedom for the Observed News
Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.