President Donald Trump is not immune from civil claims that he incited the attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters on January 6, 2021. This determination was made by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta on Tuesday.

Judge Mehta’s Ruling on Immunity

Judge Mehta ruled that Trump’s remarks at his “Stop the Steal” rally, held on the Ellipse near the White House before the siege, “plausibly” constituted inciting words not protected by the First Amendment. The judge determined that the Republican president is not shielded from liability for much of his conduct on January 6th, including the speech and related social media posts.

Official Acts vs. Incitement

However, Mehta clarified that Trump cannot be held liable for his official acts during that day, such as his remarks in the Rose Garden during the riot and his interactions with Justice Department officials. “President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties,” Mehta wrote. He further stated that the content of the Ellipse Speech confirms it is not covered by official-acts immunity.

Previous Rulings and Appeals

This decision is not the first time the court has ruled Trump can be held liable for the violence at the Capitol, and further appeals are likely. The 79-page ruling paves the way for a potential civil trial in the same courthouse where Trump faced criminal charges related to January 6th, before those charges were ended by his 2024 election.

2022 Ruling Upheld

Judge Mehta previously refused to dismiss the claims against Trump in February 2022, finding he was not entitled to presidential immunity from claims brought by Democratic members of Congress and law enforcement officers who guarded the Capitol on January 6th. In that earlier decision, Mehta also concluded Trump’s rally speech plausibly amounted to incitement and was not protected by the First Amendment. The case returned to Mehta after an appeals court upheld his 2022 decision.

Burden of Proof Remains with Trump

Mehta stated that Tuesday’s ruling on immunity is based on a “rigorous” legal standard. He emphasized that this is not a “final pronouncement on immunity for any particular act.” “President Trump remains free to reassert official-acts immunity as a defense at trial. But the burden will remain his and will be subject to a higher standard of proof,” the judge wrote.

The Rally Speech

Trump addressed a crowd of supporters at the rally before the mob disrupted the joint session of Congress certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory. He concluded his speech by saying, “We fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Plaintiffs and Legal Arguments

Plaintiffs argued that Trump cannot prove he was acting entirely in his official capacity, rather than as an office-seeking individual. They also cited Supreme Court precedent stating that office-seeking conduct falls outside the scope of presidential immunity. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., formerly of the House Homeland Security Committee, initially sued Trump, his attorney Rudolph Giuliani, and members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist groups over the January 6th riot. Other Democratic members of Congress and law enforcement officers later joined the litigation.

Clemency and Aftermath

The civil claims survived Trump’s broad act of clemency during his second term, which included pardons, commuted sentences, and the dismissal of over 1,500 criminal cases stemming from the Capitol siege. More than 100 police officers were injured defending the Capitol from the rioters. Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, praised the ruling as a “monumental victory for the rule of law, affirming that no one, including the president of the United States, is above it.”