Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 12-01-2023
Case Style:
Case Number: 1:21-CV-858
Judge:
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Jesse R. Binnall, David A. Warrington, Jonathan M. Shaw, Gary M. Lawkowski
Description: Washington, DC personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who sued the Defendant on negligence theories.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), Presidents have carried out their official responsibilities free from any exposure to civil damages liability. Nixon established a President’s absolute immunity from civil damages claims predicated on his official acts. The object of a President’s
official-act immunity is to assure that he can fearlessly and impartially discharge the singularly weighty duties of the office.
The President, though, does not spend every minute of every day exercising official responsibilities. And when he acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity from damages liability just because he happens to be the President. Rather, as the Supreme Court made clear in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), a President’s official-act immunity by nature does not extend to his unofficial actions. When he acts in an unofficial, private capacity, he is subject to civil suits like any private citizen.
The plaintiffs contend that, during President Trump’s final months in office, he conspired with political allies and supporters to obtain a second term despite his defeat in the 2020 election. He allegedly advanced that cause before January 6 by repeatedly making false claims that the election might be (and then had been) stolen, filing meritless lawsuits challenging the election results, and pressuring state and local officials to reverse the election outcomes in their jurisdictions. Those efforts allegedly culminated in the 75-minute speech
President Trump delivered at the rally on January 6. According to the plaintiffs, President Trump’s actions, including ultimately his speech on January 6, sparked the ensuing riot at the Capitol.
Outcome: President Trump moved for summary judgment, which was denied.
Affirmed on appeal.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: