U.S. Justice Department Rejects January 6th Trump Immunity Claim
The DOJ Takes Action: Earlier this month, the DOJ attempted to persuade an appeals court to deny Trump’s immunity claims from being involved with his supporters’ lawsuits. [1] The Department of Justice has received an overwhelming amount of lawsuits claiming Trump liable for the January 6th riots. It seems that the DOJ will move forward in pursuing an investigation to hold Trump liable for inciting violence and conspiring with his supporters on January 6th. [1]
Legal Precedents: A relevant legal precedent to this issue is Nixon v Fitzgerald. The respondent, Fitzgerald, was a civilian analyst for the United States Air Force. [2] He gave testimony in front of a congressional committee about the obstacles he faced when building the C-5A transport plane. [2] Fitzgerald was later fired as a cause of specific actions by President Nixon. Fitzgerald claimed that Nixon was responsible for his termination from his job, and sued Nixon.
The court had to decide whether the president could be immune from being held accountable under the law in a civil suit. Ultimately, the court held in a 5-4 decision that President Nixon was protected and given immunity under this civil case. Justice Powell noted in the decision that “the constitutional tradition of separation of powers” exempted President Nixon from being held liable for the dismissal of Fitzgerald. [2]
Implications: This court case raises unique ideas about how the United States should hold executives accountable for their actions. If the Constitution requires the courts to hold everyone accountable to the law, why should presidents receive special treatment? Is it better to hold the president less accountable for their actions so that they appear stronger? Or is it bolder to weaken the president’s power by holding them liable for their actions without immunity?
School of Public Affairs Professor, Chris Edelson, specializes in analyzing presidential national security power in the United States. Professor Edelson notes in his book that there are two approaches from scholars Louis Fisher and John Yoo about presidential power. [3] Scholar Fisher argues that it is imperative to keep the president in check by preventing them from overstepping the bounds of their power. Scholar Fisher also writes that it is important to hold presidents accountable to the law under the judiciary system. [3] Contrastingly, Scholar Yoo argues that in order for the president to carry out their constitutional functions, it is necessary that they have plenary power, this includes the power to act in emergencies when it is in the interest of protecting citizens of the United States. [3]
In the past as stated above in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, it is easy for presidents to become immune to the laws within the Constitution. This poses some potential problems when it comes to former President Trump and linking him to the violence of the January 6th riots. It is inconceivable that government officials would grant Trump immunity from the law. Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly say that the president is immune to the law or being held accountable for their actions. If the DOJ aims to hold Trump liable for his actions, this could potentially strengthen American Democracy. If we want to move towards a fairer America, it is important to uphold our constitutional values without any alteration.
