Jan Wolfe and Jacqueline Thomsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters] -Another U.S. president Donald Trump lost Friday’s bid to dismiss lawsuits claiming he incited an attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In a lengthy written ruling https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/akpezndgovr/Mehta%20order%20Jan%206%202022.pdf, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said three lawsuits by Democratic members of Congress and two police officers could proceed toward trial.

Mehta accepted to remove Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s adviser, and Donald Trump Jr. from the lawsuits.

A 1982 Supreme Court decision that states presidents can be shielded or protected from suits for their official actions is the most prominent in litigation.

Mehta decided that Trump wasn’t immune to the lawsuits. He determined that Trump’s passionate speech prior to the Capitol attack was outside the scope of his official presidency duties.

“It is a big step to deprive a President of civil liability.” Mehta said that Mehta understood the seriousness of Mehta’s decision. The court does not believe that the facts in this case have any precedent and its decision will be consistent with such immunity’s purposes.

Jesse Binnall (a Trump lawyer) did not respond immediately to our request for comment.

Trump and his codefendants argued that the remarks they made prior to the attack on Jan. 6, were protected speech under the U.S. Constitution.

Eric Swalwell of the Democratic legislature, along with Jerry Nadler from the United States, invoked an 1871 law to stop white supremacist Ku Klux Klan members. This prohibits intimidation.

These lawsuits allege that Trump conspired with rioters in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s victory.

Mehta did not rule on the merits, but said that the allegation was sufficient to allow discovery to take place, which is a process where litigants share evidence and give testimony.

“From these alleged facts, it is at least plausible to infer that, when he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol, the President did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers’ efforts to certify the Electoral College votes,” Mehta wrote.

Joseph Sellers was an attorney representing Democratic lawmakers. The ruling “demonstrates the extraordinary nature and conduct in which the then-President Trump was engaging.”