The Department of Justice’s argument this week that President Trump is protected from civil suit for the events of January 6 marks a stunning turnaround for the federal government, which once sought to convict him for election interference in a case inspired by the unrest at the Capitol. 

Attorney General Bondi now maintains that the federal government ought to take Mr. Trump’s place as a defendant in eight lawsuits whose judgments could come out to millions of dollars if the 47th president is found liable for the chaos at the Capitol. In addition to his position that he discouraged — not encouraged — the rowdy protesters, Mr. Trump also argues that his actions that day are immune. 

The civil suits at issue, brought by Capitol Hill police officers and Democratic members of Congress, are all being heard by a district court judge at the District of Columbia, Judge Amit Mehta, an appointee of President Obama who’s ruled against Mr. Trump in several cases. He also sentenced the Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes to 18 years in prison for his role on January 6 — Mr. Rhodes was pardoned by Mr. Trump in January — and sentenced one of Mr. Trump’s closest aides, Peter Navarro, then 74, to four months in prison for defying a congressional subpoena. 

The complaints before Judge Mehta accuse the 47th president of, among other offenses, conspiracy to violate civil rights, incitement to riot, battery, assault, disorderly conduct, and infliction of emotional distress.

Mr. Trump was impeached by the Democrat-controlled House on a single charge for January 6 — incitement to insurrection — and was discovered to be “not guilty” by the Republican-controlled Senate. He also turned back an effort to disqualify him from the presidential ballot as an insurrectionist on the basis of the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court overturned  by a 9-to-0 margin the Colorado supreme court’s verdict of disqualification.

Also filed at federal court at the District of Columbia was Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal case against Mr. Trump for election interference, this time before another appointee of Mr. Obama, Judge Tanya Chutkan. The Supreme Court, though, overruled both Judge Chutkan and the District of Columbia Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals in holding that official presidential acts are presumptively immune. 

That case, Trump v. United States, derailed Mr. Smith’s case but did not end it. The special counsel secured from a grand jury a second indictment that he claimed depended solely on unofficial acts for which Mr. Trump could be prosecuted and convicted. The path to a trial opened briefly, but closed irrevocably when Mr. Trump defeated Vice President Harris in November. The DOJ determined that there is a “categorical” ban on federal criminal prosecutions of a sitting president. The case was dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning it could conceivably be brought again after Mr. Trump leaves office in January 2029. 

The DOJ’s determination of that bar to prosecution, though, does not apply to civil suits. The Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones, the case that ultimately led to President Clinton’s impeachment, unanimously held that there is no immunity for sitting presidents for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office. The court, though, took pains to note that the holding “does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place.”

Judge Mehta held in February 2022 that the acts for which Mr. Trump is being sued were not immune from even civil suits because they were not connected to the duties of the presidency but were rather connected to a private effort “to remain in office for a second term,” an aspiration connected to pursuing the presidency rather than holding it. The circuit court agreed, though it indicated that Mr. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse on January 6, from which his supporters marched to the Capitol, could require further inquiry. 

Now comes Ms. Bondi to support Mr. Trump’s motion to dismiss, which argues that to attain immunity he “need only show that his challenged actions can reasonably be understood as an exercise of presidential authority. Not that that is the only way to understand them, or even the best way, but just that they can reasonably be so understood.” 

Mr. Trump’s motion for summary dismissal of the charges, which was docketed just days after he was sworn to the Constitution in January, contends that the speech at the Ellipse was “an exercise of his constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’” While the Nine in Trump did not directly rule on whether the speech at the Ellipse was immune, the court allowed that “there may, however, be contexts in which the President speaks in an unofficial capacity.”

Ms. Bondi’s support for her boss’s invocation of immunity stands in marked contrast to the previous administration’s stance on presidential immunity. After Trump was decided, President Biden called it “a dangerous precedent” that “undermines the rule of law” and a ruling that “means that there are virtually no limits on what the president can do.” The 46th president also opposed Mr. Trump’s invocation of immunity in the civil cases.

The January 6 cases are not the only civil suits with which Mr. Trump is engaged. He’s been ordered to pay the sex and romance columnist E. Jean Carroll more than $80 million for defamation and her allegations of historic sexual abuse — which Mr. Trump denies — verdicts Mr. Trump has appealed. He has also appealed Judge Arthur Engoron’s judgement of more than $450 million and other sanctions for civil fraud. That case is before New York’s intermediate appellate court.