Rule of Law

RELSEASE: Leading Constitutional Scholars Oppose Trump’s Bid for Absolute Immunity in Suits By Capitol Police Officers and Members of Congress Seeking Damages for Injuries from January 6th Attack on the Capitol

WASHINGTON, DC – Earlier today, the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) filed in a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Blassingame v. Trump on behalf of leading constitutional law scholars with expertise in executive immunity and separations of powers principles. The brief explains why former President Trump’s bid for “absolute immunity” from damages in suits (consolidated on appeal) brought by Capitol Police Officers and Members of Congress seeking compensation for injuries they incurred during the January 6th insurrection should be rejected.

CAC President Elizabeth Wydra said:

Trump should not be able to evade accountability for his role in the January 6th insurrection. No one is above the law, and Trump’s arguments that he is entitled to absolute presidential immunity are inconsistent with established Supreme Court precedent, as well as the separation of powers concerns and public policy considerations underlying that precedent.

The Capitol Police Officers and Members of Congress bringing these suits allege that Trump conspired to violently prevent Congress from discharging its duty to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s arguments that his alleged conduct—inciting a riot at the Capitol to prevent the peaceful transfer of power—was part of his “official duties” as president, and are therefore protected by absolute immunity, are completely without merit.

As our brief explains in detail, the Supreme Court has held that presidents are entitled to immunity for their official conduct because, in the Court’s view, such immunity preserves the separation of powers and ensures the proper functioning of government. Trump, however, seeks to invoke the immunity doctrine as an absolute shield from damages liability for unofficial conduct that allegedly sought to serve his own private interests by forcibly interfering with the constitutionally mandated functions of Congress.

Given Trump’s flagrant attempt to violently disrupt the separation of powers, it would be particularly inappropriate to allow Trump to hide behind the shield of an immunity intended to preserve the separation of powers. The D.C. Circuit should affirm the district court decision rejecting Trump’s bid for absolute immunity.

##

Resources:

CAC brief in Blassingame v. Trump: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/blassingame-v-trump-2/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

Supreme Court not fully sold on foreclosure fairness bid

Courthouse News Service
A showdown over tax foreclosures had the justices considering the striking set of facts that...
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Oregon v. Landis

In Oregon v. Landis, the Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes.