Politics can be a strange place to live, and that’s true. On occasion, litigation can be a good thing. It is one of those times.
The Department of Justice is fighting former President Donald Trump on multiple fronts. But it’s also defending him on a different front.
The protesters who were forced out of Lafayette Square in June 2020 by law enforcement while demonstrating against George Floyd’s death took issue with this, and filed civil lawsuits against the government, and the former President, alleging their civil rights were violated.
The DOJ, noting Trump’s alleged actions within the scope and authority of his federal office when he directed law enforcement officers to clear the park at that time, is now trying to replace itself as the proper party in the lawsuit.
The Biden Justice Department filed court documents on Monday certifying that Trump acted in the scope and authority of his office as president. It also filed a notice substituting itself as the defendant.
In the notice, James Touhey wrote, “Based on the information available now concerning the allegations outlined in this document, I find Donald J. Trump acted within the scope of his federal office or employment during the incident that gave rise to the plaintiffs’ claim,”
The court’s decision will relieve Trump of one legal burden — he won’t have to worry about being personally held liable. While the plaintiffs might object to the substitute, it is not unprecedented.
Trump can be held accountable if the protesters who filed the lawsuit object. However, the judge overruled the protesters’ objection when the Justice Department had previously replaced former Attorney General Bill Barr, and other defendants, in the case.
The DOJ filed motions to dismiss claims along with the motion for substitution. The court’s decision on the motions is not known. The move is a fascinating look at federal practice and law.
Some people who have become skeptical of the DOJ might wonder what’s the angle here. They’re just following the proper procedure in the given circumstances. Is there a hidden motive? I’m not sure. It’s interesting to see how it contrasts with the previous actions concerning E. Jean Carroll’s litigation.
The issue of scope of employment was a majorstay in E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit against the former President, which stemmed primarily from her allegations that he had sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s.
Both the Trump and Biden Administrations attempted to replace Trump in one of Carroll’s lawsuits. This dragged out the case for many months before the Justice Department reversed its position and left the former president to pay.
There are differences between the types of allegations. It is curious. But I don’t think Trump will mind if this substitution spares him from having to pay damages for the protesters.
