Donald Trump can be held civilly liable for the actions of the mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, an appeals court ruled Friday in a long-awaited decision that could clear the way for lawsuits seeking financial damages from the former president.
Keeping up with politics is easy with The 5-Minute Fix Newsletter, in your inbox weekdays.
The unanimous decision by a federal appeals court in Washington is expected to be appealed and also offers insight into how the court could view Trump’s argument that presidential immunity also protects him from being charged criminally for his efforts to stay in power after the 2020 election.
Two U.S. Capitol police officers and about a dozen Democratic lawmakers sued Trump in 2021, saying he potentially instigated violence on Jan. 6 by telling supporters the election was stolen and urging them to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell.” The plaintiffs sued under a roughly 150-year-old law that bars the use of force, threats or intimidation to prevent government officials from carrying out their duties and allows anyone injured by such actions to collect damages. They argued Trump violated the statute — designed to combat Ku Klux Klan violence after the Civil War — by conspiring with members of far-right groups to keep lawmakers from confirming Joe Biden’s election win.
Sign up for "The Trump Trials" newsletter, a weekly update on all four of the former president's criminal cases
Special Counsel Jack Smith also accused Trump of violating a law written to target the Klan, along with other federal crimes.
Trump and his lawyers have argued that he is protected from both the lawsuit and the criminal charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith because of the absolute immunity conferred on a president for anything done as part of his official duties. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, presidents can be held liable only for personal actions that fall beyond “the outer perimeter” of their responsibilities.
Skip to end of carousel
In addition to his involvement in more than 4,000 lawsuits over the course of his half-century in real estate, entertainment and politics, Donald Trump has been the subject of investigations by federal, state and regulatory authorities in every decade of his long career.
1970s
Federal investigators accuse Trump and his father of discriminating against Black New Yorkers in renting out apartments. Case settles with no admission of guilt, but Trump has to run ads pledging not to discriminate.
1980s
Federal investigators look into whether Trump gave apartments in his Trump Tower to figures connected with organized crime to keep his project on track. Trump denies the allegation. Separately, New Jersey officials probe his ties with mob figures, then grant him a casino license.
1990s
New Jersey regulators investigate Trump’s finances and conclude he “cannot be considered financially stable,” yet extend his casino license to protect jobs at his Atlantic City hotel.
2000s
Federal securities regulators cite Trump’s casino for downplaying negative results in financial reporting.
2010s
New York state sues Trump, alleging his Trump University defrauded more than 5,000 people. Trump is found personally liable. After Trump becomes president, he is impeached — and acquitted — over allegations that he solicited foreign interference in the U.S. presidential election.
2020s
Trump is impeached — and acquitted — a second time for incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. New York state sues Trump, alleging he inflated assets to mislead lenders. He is also under criminal investigation for events surrounding Jan. 6 and his handling of classified documents.
1/7
End of carousel
The question for the appellate court was whether claiming the election was stolen and telling his supporters to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” crossed that line.
At a hearing nearly a year ago, the judges argued about how to distinguish between protected presidential speechmaking and unprotected personal agitating. One judge, a Trump appointee who served in his administration, said during the December 2022 hearing that Trump’s case was complicated because the former president was plausibly accused of instigating violence in his message to supporters.
The “arguable incitement,” Judge Gregory G. Katsas said, “makes this a hard case.”
Keeping up with politics is easy with The 5-Minute Fix Newsletter, in your inbox weekdays.
The unanimous decision by a federal appeals court in Washington is expected to be appealed and also offers insight into how the court could view Trump’s argument that presidential immunity also protects him from being charged criminally for his efforts to stay in power after the 2020 election.
Two U.S. Capitol police officers and about a dozen Democratic lawmakers sued Trump in 2021, saying he potentially instigated violence on Jan. 6 by telling supporters the election was stolen and urging them to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell.” The plaintiffs sued under a roughly 150-year-old law that bars the use of force, threats or intimidation to prevent government officials from carrying out their duties and allows anyone injured by such actions to collect damages. They argued Trump violated the statute — designed to combat Ku Klux Klan violence after the Civil War — by conspiring with members of far-right groups to keep lawmakers from confirming Joe Biden’s election win.
Sign up for "The Trump Trials" newsletter, a weekly update on all four of the former president's criminal cases
Special Counsel Jack Smith also accused Trump of violating a law written to target the Klan, along with other federal crimes.
Trump and his lawyers have argued that he is protected from both the lawsuit and the criminal charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith because of the absolute immunity conferred on a president for anything done as part of his official duties. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, presidents can be held liable only for personal actions that fall beyond “the outer perimeter” of their responsibilities.
Skip to end of carousel
History of investigations involving Donald Trump
In addition to his involvement in more than 4,000 lawsuits over the course of his half-century in real estate, entertainment and politics, Donald Trump has been the subject of investigations by federal, state and regulatory authorities in every decade of his long career.
1970s
Federal investigators accuse Trump and his father of discriminating against Black New Yorkers in renting out apartments. Case settles with no admission of guilt, but Trump has to run ads pledging not to discriminate.
1980s
Federal investigators look into whether Trump gave apartments in his Trump Tower to figures connected with organized crime to keep his project on track. Trump denies the allegation. Separately, New Jersey officials probe his ties with mob figures, then grant him a casino license.
1990s
New Jersey regulators investigate Trump’s finances and conclude he “cannot be considered financially stable,” yet extend his casino license to protect jobs at his Atlantic City hotel.
2000s
Federal securities regulators cite Trump’s casino for downplaying negative results in financial reporting.
2010s
New York state sues Trump, alleging his Trump University defrauded more than 5,000 people. Trump is found personally liable. After Trump becomes president, he is impeached — and acquitted — over allegations that he solicited foreign interference in the U.S. presidential election.
2020s
Trump is impeached — and acquitted — a second time for incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. New York state sues Trump, alleging he inflated assets to mislead lenders. He is also under criminal investigation for events surrounding Jan. 6 and his handling of classified documents.
1/7
End of carousel
The question for the appellate court was whether claiming the election was stolen and telling his supporters to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” crossed that line.
At a hearing nearly a year ago, the judges argued about how to distinguish between protected presidential speechmaking and unprotected personal agitating. One judge, a Trump appointee who served in his administration, said during the December 2022 hearing that Trump’s case was complicated because the former president was plausibly accused of instigating violence in his message to supporters.
The “arguable incitement,” Judge Gregory G. Katsas said, “makes this a hard case.”
