Federal Judge Dismisses Most Claims Againt Feds Over Clearing of Lafayette Square Last Year

WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge in Washington on Tuesday dismissed claims former President Donald Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr and other officials conspired to violate the rights of Black people and their supporters by using violent force to remove protesters from Lafayette Square last year.

Black Lives Matter D.C. and individual protesters who were assembled in the park across from the White House on June 1, 2020, claim in four civil lawsuits against several federal individual and agency defendants that law enforcement officials illegally broke up their peaceful demonstrations against racial injustice with tear gas, flash-bang grenades, smoke bombs and rubber bullets — just before Trump walked through the area for a photo op in front of St. John’s Church.

In its complaint, Black Lives Matter said many demonstrators were injured and the defendants' “professed purpose” for clearing the square — to allow the president through — was not a legal reason for violating protesters’ constitutional rights. 

According to a special report released on June 9 about U.S. Park Police actions at the square that day, the USPP said it cleared the park so that a contractor could install anti-scale fencing and that they made the decision to clear the park “several hours” before they knew of a potential presidential visit. However, U.S. Department of Interior Inspector General Mark Lee Greenblatt said there were “weaknesses with the operation to clear the park,” including that the U.S. Secret Service was deployed before Park Police began making dispersal warnings, the warnings weren’t loud enough, and protesters weren’t told where they could exit before the clearing began.   

The plaintiffs claim Trump, Barr and then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper directed the conspiracy to target racial justice protesters and other defendants participated in the conspiracy and "willfully or negligently" failed to prevent it.

But U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, said in her 51-page ruling that the plaintiffs’ allegations did not prove an agreement existed between the defendants to violate their rights. 

“Rather, they demonstrate only that these officials were communicating with each other on June 1, prior to and after the clearing of Lafayette Square,” Friedrich wrote.

Friedrich also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages against Barr and other federal officials for alleged violations of First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, finding that an “extension of the Bivens remedy to this ‘new context’ is unwarranted.”  

“In this case, several special factors counsel hesitation. First, national security — specifically, the country’s national-security interest in the safety and security of the President and the area surrounding the White House — strongly weighs against creating a Bivens remedy here,” Friedrich wrote. 

“In this context, it matters not whether the national security risk actually justified the particular action taken,” the judge added.

The plaintiffs do have standing, the judge ruled, to seek an injunction against continued restrictions to access Lafayette Square, and they may pursue their claims against Arlington County and District of Columbia officials for alleged First Amendment violations relating to the dispersal tactics. 

“As alleged, the defendants prohibited all expressive activities in Lafayette Square without any basis at all; they left open no alternative channels; and they forcibly dispersed protestors because of the plaintiffs’ exercise of their protected First Amendment rights. Reasonable officers would have known that such alleged actions violated clearly established law,” Friedrich wrote.

The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys with the ACLU of the District of Columbia, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and law firm Arnold & Porter. 

ACLU D.C. Legal Director Scott Michelman said in a statement that the plaintiffs’ attorneys plan to evaluate all legal options to protect the rights of protesters. 

“Today’s ruling essentially gives the federal government a green light to use violence, including lethal force against demonstrators, as long as federal officials claim to be protecting national security,” Michelma said. 

“The blitzkrieg unleashed against civil rights demonstrators in Lafayette Square is a stain on our nation’s commitment to the Constitution, and slamming the courthouse doors in the face of the demonstrators because the defendants are federal, rather than state or local officials, sends exactly the wrong message about what our country stands for,” he added. 

The Justice Department could not be immediately reached for comment Monday night. 

Follow Kelsey Jukam on Twitter

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit