A federal appeals court ruled Friday that civil lawsuits seeking to hold former President Donald J. Trump responsible for the violence that erupted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, can proceed for now, rejecting a broad claim of immunity that Mr. Trump has spoken out. Trump’s legal team had stepped in to try to get the cases dismissed.
But the decision, made by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, left open the possibility that Trump could ultimately prevail in his immunity claims after making further arguments about why his fiery speech to supporters at the White House on January 6 should be considered an official act and not part of his re-election campaign.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution gives presidents immunity from lawsuits for actions they take in the course of their official duties. The lawsuits against Mr. Trump have raised questions about whether his conversations with his supporters about the 2020 election results were within his official job responsibilities.
The Court of Appeal essentially found that this question remains unanswered at this stage of the case. It said Trump should be given a chance to present factual evidence to refute prosecutors’ claims that the rally was a campaign event — scrutinizing issues such as whether campaign officials organized it and whether campaign funds were used to pay for it.
“Because our decision is not necessarily even the final word on the issue of presidential immunity, we obviously express no opinion on the ultimate merits of the claims against President Trump,” the panel wrote.
The court added: “In the upcoming district court proceedings, President Trump will have the opportunity to demonstrate that his alleged actions leading up to and on January 6 were taken in his official capacity as president and not in his unofficial capacity as a presidential candidate.”
Although the panel’s ruling was limited, it allowed the civil cases to proceed temporarily in Federal District Court in Washington, adding to the raft of legal challenges Trump faces as he runs for president again. The ruling comes as Mr. Trump has made a parallel effort to have the criminal charges he faces on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election dismissed on a similar claim of immunity.
In his Judgment of 67 pagesThe panel recognized that legal precedents have long protected a president from prosecution for actions taken in the course of his job. But it rejected Trump’s view that every time a president speaks on matters of public importance, it should always be considered an official act.
“When a first-term president chooses to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act,” the court said. “The office of the presidency as an institution is agnostic as to who will hold it next. And campaigning to win that office is not an official act of office.”
In the wake of the attack on the Capitol, a number of accusers, including members of Congress and police officers involved in the riot, filed a series of lawsuits against Mr. Trump in Washington, blaming him for inciting the crowd on January 6. with the speech he gave that day. Mr. Trump tried to have the cases dismissed, claiming, among other things, that he was immune from civil lawsuits.
In February 2022, the judge, Amit P. Mehta, rejected Mr. Trump’s arguments, saying the former president was not protected by presidential immunity or the First Amendment. Mr Trump subsequently appealed Judge Mehta’s ruling.
The panel that ruled Friday included two appointees of Democratic presidents, Judges Sri Srinivasan and Judith W. Rogers, and one appointed by Mr. Trump, Judge Gregory G. Katsas.