Judge denies Trump effort to end Jan. 6 lawsuits before trial

Ryan Tarinelli, CQ-Roll Call on Apr 1, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump must still face civil lawsuits seeking to hold him accountable for his role in the lead up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in a long-running litigation from Democratic House members and Capitol Police officers.

Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in an opinion found that a range of actions Trump took leading up to the attack did not qualify for the legal immunity presidents have for official acts.

Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech before a crowd of supporters on the Ellipse was not an official act, the judge said. Neither were certain social media posts from the campaign, certain remarks Trump made at other political events and comments Trump made a day after the 2020 contest claiming the election results were a fraud on the American public, the judge ruled.

The official act immunity shield was first outlined by the Supreme Court in a 2024 decision stemming from federal criminal charges against Trump. That decision found presidents have “absolute immunity” from federal charges for acts taken at the “core” of their constitutional duties, and the possibility of a lesser immunity for official acts outside of that undefined core.

“President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties,” Mehta wrote, weighing in on the Ellipse speech. “The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity.”

Trump, at the rally, urged his supporters to “fight” to overturn the election. At one point in the speech, he told the crowd that “you are allowed to go by very different rules,” and said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

That day, a mob of pro-Trump rioters violently overtook the Capitol in Trump’s name. Members of the crowd assaulted officers, overwhelmed police, battled their way into the Capitol building, destroyed property and sent lawmakers fleeing in fear.

In explaining how Trump was not immune from civil liability, the judge wrote that the White House did not take a meaningful role in planning the rally, and no public money was used to put it on or promote the event.

“The White House did not tout the Ellipse Speech through its official website or social media channels beforehand, and it did not publish the President’s remarks afterwards. Nor did any executive branch agency,” the judge said.

The judge also found that there was a political angle to the call Trump held with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger after the 2020 election, in which Trump pressured the Republican state official to find thousands of votes so he could carry the state.

“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,” Mehta wrote.

Joseph Sellers, an attorney for lawmakers in the long-running suit, said in a statement that if the judge’s holdings are upheld, Trump would have to appear at a civil trial to defend against the claims “that he violated federal civil rights laws in his actions before and during the January 6 rally.”

“The Court also reaffirmed its decision that President Trump’s remarks at the rally on January 6 were that of a candidate, not entitled to protection by the First Amendment,” Sellers said.

Democratic Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee, a named plaintiff in the suit who was a member of Congress during the attack, welcomed the ruling, saying it “serves as a reminder to the American people that no one is above the law.”

A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement 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 immunity outlined by the Supreme Court is backed by long-established legal precedent and vital to the presidency, the statement said.

“President Trump will continue to fight back against the Democrat Witch Hoaxes and keep delivering historic results for the American People,” the statement said.

The judge also turned down a Justice Department bid that would have immunized Trump from being held personally responsible and would have required the dismissal of the tort claims altogether.

_____