Presidential immunity does not protect former President Donald Trump from a case alleging civil rights violations, a U.S. judge ruled on Nov. 28.
The case involves efforts by Trump and his campaign after the 2020 election, including a meeting Trump held with election officials in Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs, represented by lawyers with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Legal Defense Fund, said such efforts violated the Voting Rights Act.
“The objective of Defendants’ conspiracy was to intimidate election officials, disenfranchise and overturn the will of voters, and ensure that then-President Trump stayed in power despite losing the 2020 presidential election,” they said in one filing.
Lawyers for Trump said his actions, including calls with officials in multiple states, were protected.
“All of these actions fall well within the outer perimeter of the President’s Office. President Trump had an obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. President Trump also had a duty to uphold the Constitution. Speaking publicly, whether in person or through a public social media forum, is quintessential to the President’s Office,” Jesse Binnall, one of the lawyers, wrote in one filing.
He cited a previous ruling that found the president enjoys “absolute immunity” against many legal challenges.
But plaintiffs said the actions were made in Trump’s capacity as a candidate, rather than as president, and Sullivan agreed.
The conduct at hand was “purely political” and therefore falls outside of presidential immunity, the judge said.
“If Former President Trump disrupted the certification of the electoral vote count, as Plaintiffs allege here, such actions would not constitute executive action in defense of the Constitution. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Former President Trump is not immune from monetary damages in this suit,” Sullivan wrote.
The ruling came as plaintiffs asked to file a second updated complaint incorporating what they described as new information, including information about calls that Trump made while still in office. Trump’s lawyers said the allegations weren’t new and simply reiterated the first updated complaint.
Sullivan granted the motion to file a second amended complaint.
Lawyers for Trump, the Republican National Committee (RNC), and the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comment.
RNC
The RNC is also a defendant in the case, which was lodged in federal court in Washington, D.C.The RNC “aligned itself with” and “contributed to” Trump’s effort to challenge election results, according to the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, which added the RNC as a defendant.
That included RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel writing to the Michigan Board of Canvassers, urging a delay of the certification of results from Wayne County in order to perform an audit.
The RNC also “frequently endorsed and amplified material from and in support” Trump and his campaign, the complaint stated.
RNC lawyers said in filings that the complaint was targeting statements that are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
“The Voting Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) serve many important purposes. Having a federal court take sides in a now-completed political campaign is not one of them,” they said in one filing.
“Plaintiffs’ amended complaint should be dismissed because §11(b) of the Voting Rights Act has no private right of action; §1985(3) creates no substantive rights; Plaintiffs allege no intimidation, threat, or coercion under either statute; Plaintiffs’ allegations concern speech protected by the First Amendment and actions that are not attributable to the RNC; and Plaintiffs identify no past, present, or future injury to voting rights that they have fully exercised,” they added.
