The Justice Department disagreed with Trump’s claim of immunity for his January 6 speech

The Defendant Committee of the Florida Capitol Investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Attack: A Response to Trump’s Filiation

Trump’s lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of Florida, where other Trump lawyers successfully sued to secure a special master who has been tasked with conducting an independent review of records seized by the FBI during an Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago.

The suit filed Friday evening contends that, while former presidents have voluntarily agreed to provide testimony or documents in response to congressional subpoenas in the past, “no president or former president has ever been compelled to do so.”

“Long-held precedent and practice maintain that separation of powers prohibits Congress from compelling a President to testify before it,” Trump attorney David A. Warrington said in a statement announcing Trump’s intentions.

The panel ignores a political path and leaves President Trump with no choice, but to involve the Judicial Branch, which is consistent with Executive Branch prerogatives.

The committee declined to comment on the filing which was made a week before a deadline for Trump to start cooperating. But the suit likely dooms the prospect of Trump ever having to testify, given that the committee is expected to disband at the end of the legislative session in January.

In addition to demanding that Trump testify, the committee also made 19 requests for documents and communication — including for any messages Trump sent on the encrypted messaging app Signal or by “any other means” to members of Congress and others about the stunning events of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

The committee wants to gather a historical record of the run up to the election, starting from the day before the vote to the day before the election.

Circuit Rules on the Impossibility of Presidential Speech for a Classification of January 6, 2020 Defamation in Washington, D.C.

The DC Circuit is considering a request from Trump to overturn the ruling. After hearing arguments last year, the appeals court invited the Justice Department to weigh in.

The Justice Department did caution the court against using the January 6 civil cases as a vehicle to draw firm lines on whether president can face liability for speech related to electoral or political concerns. Instead, the department asked the DC Circuit to issue a “narrow” ruling, focused solely on the assertion by Trump’s attorneys that he should be immune to civil lawsuits for presidential speech even if that speech incited violence.

When presidential speech is an official act, presidents are immune from damages, but when it is a private act, the question is still murky.

The DOJ said that it had no opinion on the district court findings that President Trump incited the attack on the Capitol. The categorical argument President Trump pressed was rejected by this Court, because it was based on the fact that actual indignities would be protected by absolute immunity.

The Justice Department, under Attorney General Merrick Garland, came under fire from the left when it held onto the department’s Trump-era position that Trump could not be sued personally for allegedly defaming a woman who accused him of sexual assault. The courts are still considering the question, but if it sides with DOJ, that would force the dismissal of the case, brought by E. Jean Carroll.

The DC Circuit is asked to not issue any ruling that would attempt to define the boundaries of the President’s immunity for his speech on matters of public concern and how to draw a line between the president’s official and electoral speech.

In the brief, the department said it didn’t express any view on the potential criminal liability of any person for the events of January 6, 2021, or acts connected with those events.

If the appeals court were to side with the Justice Department and allow the Jan. 6 lawsuit to proceed, it could add to the mountain of legal costs Mr. Trump faces as he pursues his 2024 campaign for president.

No Comments on Elections, Campaigns, and Campaigning for a Political Cause, or a Campaign for an Election, or Any Other Political Action

The reporters at the Times cover politics. Our journalists are independent observers, we rely on them. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.