WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge on Thursday denied former President Donald Trump’s motion to pause proceedings in a civil personal injury suit brought by Democratic lawmakers over the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, rejecting his argument it should only resume after his related criminal case has concluded.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta acknowledged that some of Trump’s concerns that by defending this case first he could reveal his defense strategy in the criminal matter as valid, but do not show a pressing need for such an indefinite stay.
The Barack Obama appointee wrote in his opinion that Trump's assertion that there is “substantial overlap” between the lawmakers’ allegations and special counsel Jack Smith’s allegations in his still-paused election subversion case is “true in a sense.”
“But defendant overstates the significance of that factual overlap in the present posture of these matters,” Mehta said.
In his March 19 motion, Trump argued that by allowing the civil case to proceed while his criminal case is still pending, it could violate his right against self-incrimination.
“President Trump should not be forced to waive any of his constitutional rights in this matter, nor prematurely telegraph his criminal defense strategies before the completion of the criminal proceedings,” Trump said in the motion.
Trump's criminal case has been paused since December, as his presidential immunity claim has made its way through the D.C. Circuit and is now before the Supreme Court, who is set to hear arguments on the issue on April 25.
If the high court rejects his argument, a trial would likely resume sometime in the fall and could potentially run up to and through the November election.
Mehta, citing the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Blassingame v. Trump that opened the former president up to civil litigation for his nonofficial acts surrounding Jan. 6, found little concern of a Fifth Amendment violation.
He said that the sole purpose of discovery in the civil case will be to determine whether Trump’s actions “can reasonably be understood as the official actions of an officeholder rather than the unofficial actions of an office-seeker.”
The case will merely center on the question of immunity and would not require Trump — who would not be required to attend in person like his current criminal case in Manhattan — to admit to any of the conduct he's accused of in Smith’s case.
The plaintiffs, congressional Democrats like Eric Swalwell, Bennie Thompson, Karen Bass, Pramila Jayapal, Maxine Waters and more, have also conceded they are not asking for Trump to be deposed and testify under oath.
While Trump’s discovery concerns are more general, he specifically cited his Twitter account as leading to potential Fifth Amendment violations, as the plaintiffs have asked he stipulate certain tweets were sent from his personal account. He argued that because he has said the tweets were official acts in Smith’s case, the proposed stipulation could negatively impact his criminal defense.
But Mehta found the concerns unpersuasive as Trump has said in both cases the tweets are official acts and the only question would be whether the tweet falls within or without the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.
In their February 2021 suit, the lawmakers claim Trump, along with allies like Rudy Giuliani and members of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, violated the Ku Klux Klan Act by plotting and using violence to prevent them from certifying the 2020 election results.
Trump and Giuliani’s efforts in the months between the election and Jan. 6 to sow doubt about Joe Biden’s victory furthered the conspiracy, they say.
Trump’s efforts, the lawmakers say, went beyond the outer perimeter of his official duties, making him ineligible for the civil immunity granted to former presidents in the Supreme Court case Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
In an opposition brief, the lawmakers argued that a stay would harm them in three ways: delay the adjudication of their claims; impact the available evidence; and increase the risk that Trump moves or depletes his assets and be unable to satisfy a potential judgement.
Mehta was unmoved by the latter two claims, but agreed that both the plaintiffs and the public have an interest in the case moving forward.
He ordered Trump to provide a description of his immunity defense to the plaintiffs on May 1, and that either party propose a protective order by April 26 to ensure Trump’s discovery responses remain under seal for the time being.
Follow @Ryan_Knappy
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.
