Federal judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against Jan. 6 committee

---

A federal judge threw out a lawsuit that former President Donald Trump had filed against the Jan. 6 House Select Committee, which had subpoenaed him to testify. Trump had alleged that the subpoena violated his First Amendment rights, defied historical precedent, and violated his executive privilege. 

Key Players

Donald Trump was elected as the 45th president of the United States in 2016. His loss to President Joe Biden in 2020 spurred conspiracy theories that questioned the legitimacy of the election. Trump repeatedly rejected the election’s validity, claimed it had been illegally stolen, and attempted to overturn the count in his favor. 

The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th (2021) Attack on the United States Capitol was created by the House of Representatives. Beginning July 1, 2021, the committee, comprising seven Democrats and two Republicans, interviewed more than a thousand witnesses, reviewed over 1 million documents, and conducted public hearings. 

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) chaired the select committee. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) served as its vice chair.   

Further Details

On Jan. 6, 2021, the day Congress certified Biden’s victory in the Electoral College, thousands of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in a “Save America Rally.” Rioters sought to override the results and install Trump as president for a second term.

The select committee later deemed that Trump was directly responsible for inciting the riot. On Oct. 21, 2022, the committee subpoenaed him, advising that Fifth Amendment invocations by several of his former staff and allies necessitated the need for his own testimony. 

The subpoena asserted that Trump had orchestrated the attack, obstructed the “peaceful transition” of power, “purposely and maliciously” spread false allegations of voter fraud; attempted to “corrupt” the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ), “pressured” members of congress, and “filed false information, under oath, in federal court,” among other infractions. 

“In short, you were at the center of the first and only effort by any U.S. President to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transition of power, ultimately culminating in a bloody attack on our own Capitol and on the Congress itself,” the subpoena stated, ordering Trump to submit documents by Nov. 4, 2022, and testify “on or about” Nov. 14, The Associated Press reported. 

The subpoena requested records as far back as Sept. 1, 2020. 

The select committee sought data from Signal, an encrypted messaging app frequently used by Trump’s allies, as well as records of his communications with key allies, lawmakers, and extremist groups “relating or referring in any way to efforts to encourage or summon individuals to travel to Washington, D.C.” on the day of the attack. It also requested any electronic or handwritten notes about the violence. 

On. Nov. 4, Trump missed the deadline, an action Thompson called a “delay tactic,” CNN reported. Five days later, Trump’s lawyers announced he would not testify, claiming he did not have records of his personal communications from the day of the riot. A week later, Trump filed a lawsuit against the Select Committee, challenging the subpoena and the committee’s legitimacy, and claiming that he had immunity from testifying. 

“President Trump did not check his constitutional rights at the Oval Office door. Because the Committee’s Subpoena to President Trump infringes upon his First Amendment rights it is invalid,” the lawsuit stated, adding that the subpoena was “an unwarranted intrusion upon the institution of the Presidency because there are other sources of the requested information, including the thousand-plus witnesses the Committee has contacted and one million documents that the Committee has collected.”

David Warrington, Trump’s attorney, stated that “long-held precedent and practice maintain that separation of powers prohibits Congress from compelling a President to testify before it,” The AP reported. 

The committee acknowledged that a subpoena to a former president was a “significant and historic action” but cited former presidents who had testified before Congress, such as John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt, and Gerald Ford. 

“President Roosevelt explained during his congressional testimony, ‘an ex-President is merely a citizen of the United States, like any other citizen, and it is his plain duty to try to help this committee or respond to its invitation,’” the subpoena states. 

Outcome

Legal issues persist

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Trump’s legal team had temporarily obtained the appointment of a “special master” to consider which of the government records Trump had stored at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida residence and club, should be excluded from review in the DOJ’s criminal investigation of him, NBC News reported.    

The committee had previously held witnesses in contempt of Congress for refusing to honor a subpoena. For instance, Steve Bannon, a Trump ally and former White House chief strategist, was convicted of contempt and later sentenced to four months in prison on Oct. 21. 

However, it is far more difficult to force a former president to comply. If the House of Representatives voted to hold Trump in contempt, the DOJ would then review the case, according to The AP. 

On Dec. 19, the committee voted to recommend that the DOJ pursue criminal charges against Trump. 

Committee disbands

On Jan. 3, 2023, the committee’s mandate to investigate effectively ended when the newly elected House, with a narrow Republican majority, took office, The Hill reported. Days before the 118th Congress was set to begin, the committee withdrew its subpoena, the Washington Examiner reported. 

While the committee dissolved, its reports and documents remained available to the DOJ, as well as the public.  

Federal judge throws out lawsuit

On Jan. 4, U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz, nominated by Trump, dismissed the case, ruling that the lawsuit was irrelevant after the panel withdrew the subpoena, the Washington Examiner reported. 

“This case is moot and should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as ‘there would appear to be no need for further relief from this Court and therefore no live controversy between the parties related to the previously issued subpoena,'” Ruiz wrote.