Donald Trump, the president, may well be immune from any civil action for allegedly inciting an attack against the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The candidate, is not, an appellate court in the District of Columbia says.
"When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act," says a ruling handed down this morning.
The court's unanimous decision to reject Trump's claim of absolute immunity places the Republican frontrunner in increased financial jeopardy, paving the way for members of Congress and Capitol police to seek compensation for harms allegedly endured during a riot that resulted in millions of dollars in damages and caused injury to nearly 140 police officers, according to their union.
In a 67-page opinion, the court says that Trump failed in his attempt to demonstrate that he's entitled to what's called "Official-act immunity," a powerful liability shield afforded to presidents that aims to ensure that they can-as the court puts it-"Fearlessly and impartially discharge the singularly weighty duties" of the presidency.
"We answer no," the court says, "At least at this stage of the proceedings," adding that "Campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office."
Trump's claim of immunity was first rejected by US district court judge Amit Mehta in February 2022.
In part, it was Trump's own attempt to overturn the election at the US Supreme Court that may have doomed his case.
The DC Circuit says he acknowledged that his post-election efforts to have the result reversed in his favor were done in a personal capacity, and not that of a sitting president.
Those claims, the ruling says, certified that Trump sought the court's intervention based on his own "Unique and substantial" interests as-specifically-a candidate.
Trump's attorney has argued that the distinction is immaterial, and the appellate court unanimously disagreed.
The matter of immunity was the sole issue under consideration, and Trump's liability has yet to be determined.
The US Justice Department, asked by the appellate court to weigh in on the matter last year, concluded in March that Trump could be sued over the attack, adding that while presidents are afforded great protection with regard to a "Vast realm" of speech, it did not extend to the "Incitement of imminent private violence."
This Cyber News was published on www.wired.com. Publication date: Fri, 01 Dec 2023 23:06:56 +0000