Trump’s Loss on Immunity in ‘Last Vestiges’ of January 6 Case Could Cost Him Millions

The ruling by Judge Amit Mehta that President Trump’s speech at the Ellipse on January 6, 2021 is bereft of immunity from civil suit is a defeat for the 47th president — and a landmark limitation on the prerogatives of America’s highest office. Judge Mehta, a trial judge at the District of Columbia who was appointed by President Obama, writes in a 79-page decision that “President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties. The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity.”The ruling comes in a civil suit brought by Democratic lawmakers and Capitol Hill police officers seeking to hold Mr. Trump liable for the riot at the Capitol and other efforts to contest the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Judge Mehta writes that the “court’s decision today is not a final pronouncement on immunity for any particular act. President Trump remains free to reassert official-acts immunity as a defense at trial.” Liability across seven consolidated cases could run to millions of dollars. Judge Mehta calls the case “among the last vestiges of litigation concerning the events at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” Appellate courts have held that the “President is entitled to official immunity from civil damages liability based on actions within the ‘outer perimeter’ of official presidential responsibility” and that the “President is subject to civil damages suits based on actions taken in an unofficial, private capacity to the same extent as any private citizen.”Mr. Trump argues that his actions at issue in the suit are immune from liability “because they amounted to speech on matters of public concern” and because “they came within his constitutional duty under the Take Care Clause.” Judge Mehta, though, contends that “merely speaking on a matter of public concern is not, by itself, enough to enjoy official-acts immunity. Context matters.” The context at the Ellipse, the jurist decides, was that of an “office-seeker” rather than “official-holder.”In 2024 the Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States, which ruled that official presidential actions are presumptively immune from criminal prosecution, while unofficial ones lack that protection. Acts that are in the “conclusive and preclusive” ambit of presidential responsibility — like, say, the pardon power — enjoy “absolute” protection. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in Trump, explained that the presumption of immunity for official acts can be overcome only if “the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” Mr. Smith’s case against Mr. Trump was dismissed before the trial judge, Tanya Chutkan, could discern which elements of Mr. Smith’s indictment could withstand the Nine’s new teaching on immunity.Judge Mehta’s opinion, though, ranged beyond Mr. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse. The judge ruled that Mr. Smith’s telephone call to Georgia’s secretary of state, George Raffensperger, in the wake of the 2020 vote — the one where the state official was asked to “find 11,780 votes” — is not immune from civil liability, either. Judge Mehta writes that “These are the words of an office-seeker imploring a state official to alter the outcome of Georgia’s election, not those of an incumbent President acting in his official capacity.”When Judge Mehta turned to analyze the speech at the Ellipse, he found that “nearly all the individuals who ran the nuts and bolts of the operation” were campaign rather than administration officials. He writes that “The court assesses whether he has carried his burden to show he is cloaked with official acts immunity for the Ellipse Speech. He has not. President Trump does not dispute that he remained an office-seeker up to and on January 6.”Following Judge Mehta’s ruling Mr. Trump’s legal team issued a statement that declared that the “facts show that on January 6, 2021, President Trump was acting on behalf of the American people, carrying out his official duties as President of the United States.” The statement adds that “President Trump will continue to fight back against the Democrat Witch Hoaxes and keep delivering historic results for the American People.”One of the case’s plaintiffs, Congressman Eric Swalwell — he is a Democratic candidate in California’s gubernatorial race — says in a statement that “Donald Trump thinks he can get away with murder.” Judge Mehta’s ruling, though, allows for the possibility of appeal, which given the constitutional issues implicated could be a drawn out process. The issue could eventually return to the Supreme Court.

Trump’s Loss on Immunity in ‘Last Vestiges’ of January 6 Case Could Cost Him Millions

More from the New York Sun

Israel and Lebanon Coordinate Aid Convoy to Christian Villages in Combat Zone

Emerging Claim That Targeting Civilian Infrastructure Is a War Crime Proves a Bridge Too Far

Stanford Calls Bluff on Students Using Jain Faith To Dodge Meal Plan

More from the New York Sun

Israel and Lebanon Coordinate Aid Convoy to Christian Villages in Combat Zone

Emerging Claim That Targeting Civilian Infrastructure Is a War Crime Proves a Bridge Too Far

Stanford Calls Bluff on Students Using Jain Faith To Dodge Meal Plan

South Florida GOP Congresswoman’s Immigration Reform Bill Sparks Backlash From Colleagues, Conservative Commentariat

Middle-Class Americans Prove the Biggest Winners From Trump’s Tax Cuts in the Big Beautiful Bill

In a Funeral for Economic Liberty, the Casket Cartel Seeks To Bury the Competition

The Double Tragedy of the Jewish Bund

Borrowing a Page From El Salvador’s Bukele, Ecuadoran President Welcomes American Troops To Assist With His Drug Gang Crackdown