The Court of Appeal ruled that the action of the President during the riot is not an official act of the presidency, but an unofficial acting of the president
The court decision to reject Trump’s claim of immunity leaves the Republican with increased financial jeopardy, which opens the door for members of Congress and Capitol police to seek compensation for the harm they said they suffered during the riot that resulted in millions of dollars in damages.
Trump claims he had immunity from civil lawsuits as president, and wants the cases dismissed. Trump’s actions leading up to and on the day of his inauguration were considered official acts of the presidency, and thus shielded from liability, as questioned by the appeals court.
According to the opinion written by Judge Sri Srinivasan the president does not exercise official responsibilities every minute of every day. When he acts outside his office, he doesn’t enjoy immunity from damages liability, just because he’s the President.
“He is acting as an officer-seeker, not officer-holder — no less than are the persons running against him when they take precisely the same actions in their competing campaigns to attain precisely the same office,” the opinion said.
Trump has tried to argue that a president’s speech on a matter of public concern, such as allegations of vote fraud, should be considered an official act of the president.
A sitting president speaking in a campaign ad for his reelection is usually considered to be a public concern. Yet he does so in an unofficial, private capacity as office-seeker, not an official capacity as office-holder,” the opinion said. Actions taken in an unofficial capacity cannot qualify for official act immunity.
“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 said that trying to gain that office is not an official act of the office.
Trump tried to overturn the election at the US Supreme Court that may have hurt his case. The DC Circuit says that the efforts to have the outcome reversed in his favor were not done by 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.
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.”