BOOYAH!! Jan 6 Raises its Ugly Head but in a Beautiful Way: Court Holds Trump NOT Immune for Certain Acts Fueling Jan 6!

This case was first filed back in February of 2021 (so just a few weeks after Jan 6). It is a case against Donald Trump, holding him liable for the results of his actions that day. To refresh your memory (not like they need it, I'm sure, but just for the sake of completeness), the Complaint starts out saying:

"On and before January 6, 2021, the Defendants Donald J. Trump, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers conspired to incite an assembled crowd to march upon and enter the Capitol of the United States for the common purpose of disrupting, by the use of force, intimidation and threat, the approval by Congress of the count of votes cast by members of the Electoral College as required by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. In doing so, the Defendants each intended to prevent, and ultimately delayed, members of Congress from discharging their duty commanded by the United States Constitution to approve the results of the Electoral College in order to elect the next President and Vice President of the United States."

Now guys, if you read only *one* opinion and order from me this week, make it this one! (Although of course I hope you read several, or even all of them!) Because in this *incredible*, *glorious* 79-page opinion (included for Notes from the Front members) Judge Amit P. Mehta (who has the coolest signature I've seen in a while) articulates in perfect detail *exactly* *why* Trump is *not immune* for some of those actions.

Guys, look, I hate to say I told you so (actually I kind of like it), but from the very moment that the Supreme Court issued that presidential immunity decision, when all of the social media accounts were whipping you into a frenzy saying that now Trump could do whatever he wanted, saying that he has complete immunity, *I* was giving you the actual facts, explaining to you that no, he does *not* have complete immunity, he *only* has immunity for acts that are *within the scope of his duties and responsibilities as president*!

Well, now you don't have to take my word for it, you can take Judge Mehta's word for it. He starts out with:

"In February 2022, this court denied President Donald J. Trump’s motion to dismiss, ruling that Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that President Trump’s acts leading up to and on January 6, including his rally speech on the Ellipse (“Ellipse Speech” or “Speech”), were not official acts and therefore he did not enjoy presidential immunity from suit. The court also held that words spoken during the Ellipse Speech plausibly amounted to incitement and were not protected under the First Amendment."

WhooEE!!

What's more, the Court of Appeals *affirmed* that decision.

Next the DOJ got into the action by attempting to shield Trump with what is known as a "Westfall Act Certification". Basically this is when the Attorney General (R.I.no-P) 'certifies' that acts by the president fell within the scope of his duties as president and so the United States *steps in* as the defendant, thus shielding the president from personal liability.

So in addition to the primary claims in the initial complaint (included for Notes from the Front members), the plaintiffs were also asking for the Court to strike that Westfall certification; in other words to *not* let the DOJ substitute the U.S. as the defendant, and to keep Trump *personally* as the defendant.

Judge Mehta then goes on to a detailed analysis of a couple of cases that provide the guardrails for his own analysis, including a D.C. Circuit (Court of Appeals) case called "Blassingame", and, of course, the Supreme Court immunity decision in "Trump".

Time and again it all comes back to this: immunity for official acts that are part of his *official* duties as president, no immunity for acts that are not. "[T]he President is subject to civil damages suits based on actions taken in an unofficial, private capacity to the same extent as any private citizen."

Then the Court goes into an analysis of what constitutes official duties; there are clear official duties, and then there are acts which run right up against the "outer perimeter" of official duties, and then there are those which cross the line and can no longer be considered official duties by any stretch of the imagination.

There are great analyses and analogies in this opinion, some of which make clear that, at the end of the day, the president is *an employee*, and just like any other employee some acts are within the scope of his employment, and some aren't.

Guess what is *not* within the scope of his employment?

Campaigning for his next job.

And what was Trump trying to do on Jan 6? He was trying to be president for the *next* four years.

"Campaigning to *attain* [the Office of the President] . . . is not an official function *of* the office."

The discussion of this is *so* clear, *so* awesome, and so..well, can you say "schadenfreude"?

I knew you could.

This opinion is the action-packed, feel-good entertainment of the spring blockbuster opinions season (stay tuned for our summer release, "The Supreme Court Hands Trump his {BLEEP} Over Birthright Citizenship.") It is 79 pages of satisfying goodness. So I've only touched the tip of the iceberg, and I really hope you will read it. And then come back here and let us know *your* favourite quotes from the opinion!

There are five points to the order, three of which are denying Trump's requests, and two of which are granting Plaintiffs' requests.

And, no bond, and as of today, no Bondi!

Notes from the Front members: the 79-page opinion and order, along with the original complaint, are below for you!

Not a Notes from the Front member? Join us now to access this and all of our resources. Don't want the documents? You can still join to support my efforts to keep you informed. :~) In fact you’ll never miss any of my posts as they will land directly in your inbox! It's just $5 a month (or $50 a year), and I do all the research so you don't have to. Join here to get immediate access to our private community chat, the documents, and more:

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "blockbuster". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering why everyone is talking about blockbusters! ;~)