Case: Lee v. Trump

1:21-cv-00400 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Filed Date: Feb. 16, 2021

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about the violent insurrection and disruption of Congress on January 6, 2021, while Congress certified the Electoral College results for the next President and Vice President of the United States. This case is part of the Clearinghouse Special Collection on January 6 civil litigation. On February 16, 2021, a member of the United States House of Representatives, in his personal capacity, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Represented by pri…

On February 16, 2021, a member of the United States House of Representatives, in his personal capacity, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Represented by private counsel and the NAACP, the plaintiff sued President Trump in his personal capacity, Rudy Giuliani, Proud Boys International, and Oath Keepers under the Ku Klux Klan Act 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1). The representative sought a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from engaging in future violations of the act, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. He claimed that the defendants plotted, coordinated, and executed a common plan to prevent Congress from discharging its official duties in certifying the results of the presidential election. He also claimed that in furtherance of this plan, the defendants spread misinformation to disrupt the legally required presidential election process. These actions allegedly prevented the plaintiff from performing his official duties and deprived him of his right to be free from intimidation and threats while doing so. This case was assigned to District Judge Amit P. Mehta.

On April 7, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and submitted the amended complaint as an exhibit. The court granted the motion. Ten plaintiffs joined the complaint, and two additional defendants were named – Warboys LLC, and the former national chairman of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio.

On May 26, 2021, defendants Trump, Giuliani, and the Oath Keepers submitted separate motions to dismiss the complaint. The Oath Keepers and Giuliani argued that plaintiffs lacked standing and that the First Amendment protected defendants' conduct on January 6. President Trump argued that he was absolutely immune from civil liability for actions undertaken during his presidency.

While the court deliberated the motions, Representative Thompson voluntarily dismissed his complaint, as he wished to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest between his role as Chair of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the Capitol and his role as plaintiff in this litigation. The remaining plaintiffs - including Representatives Karen Bass, Stephen Cohen, Veronica Escobar, Pramila Jayapal, Henry Johnson, Marcia Kaptur, Barbara Lee, Jerrold Nadler, Maxine Waters, and Bonnie Watson Coleman - continued to pursue their claims.

On February 18, 2022, Judge Mehta granted defendant Giuliani's motion to dismiss but denied President Trump and the Oath Keepers' motion to dismiss. Judge Mehta held that defendant Giuliani's speech was protected under the First Amendment, but found that plaintiffs had alleged specific enough facts that the Oath Keepers conspired to overturn the election for the lawsuit to go forward. The court denied President Trump's absolute immunity argument, finding that immunity was improper because the President’s actions were not concerned with executing his duties faithfully, but rather with remaining in office for another term.

A month later on March 18, 2022, President Trump appealed the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss.

On December 1, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the motion to dismiss.

On February 16, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia consolidated this case with the other civil cases against President Trump for his conduct on January 6. These cases, all of which can be found on the Clearinghouse, are: Swalwell v. Trump; Blassingame v. Trump; Smith v. Trump; Garza v. Trump; Moore v. Trump; Tabron v. Trump; and Kirkland v. Trump (“Consolidated Cases”). The cases were consolidated for immunity-related discovery, resolution of the immunity issue on summary judgment, and merit discovery, if necessary.

On March 19, 2024, President Trump filed a motion to stay all proceedings in the Consolidated Cases as they relate to him for the duration of the criminal proceedings in United States v. Donald J. Trump, Case No. 1:23-cr-00257, and any appeal thereafter. The leader of Proud Boys International joined the motion on March 20, 2024.

On March 26, 2024, plaintiffs filed the opposition to the motion to stay immunity discovery. Plaintiffs argued that: the limited immunity inquiry in Consolidated Cases was unrelated to President Trump's criminal case; an indefinite stay would frustrate judicial economy; the balance of hardships weighed against an indefinite stay; President Trump could not identify a pressing need for an indefinite stay although he was obliged to; and the court could deny a stay while still protecting President Trump’s Fifth Amendment rights. On April 2, 2024, President Trump replied to plaintiff’s opposition, arguing that (i) the criminal proceedings against President Trump were plainly “related” to the allegations in this case; (ii) proceedings in the Consolidated Cases would burden the court; (iii) the balance of interests favored a stay; and (iv) staying this matter until the criminal case was resolved was appropriate.

On April 18, 2024, Judge Mehta denied defendants' motions to stay. 2024 WL 1872489. The Court found, among other things, that (i) President Trump’s Fifth Amendment privilege was far less likely to be implicated because the discovery authorized by the District Court in this civil case did not require President Trump to “engage with the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims"; (ii) premature disclosure of the defense theory to prosecutors was unlikely to occur here due to the limited scope of discovery; (iii) the court would impose safeguards to ensure that the immunity discovery in this case does not exceed what is ordinarily discoverable in a criminal case; (iv) there would be no burden for court because President Trump did not claim that the facts established in his criminal trial would render immunity discovery in this case “duplicative and unnecessary;” (v) the public interest, as well as plaintiffs' interest in prompt resolution of their claims, weighed against an indefinite stay; and (vi) there was no reason to await the Supreme Court’s decision because the district court was unlikely to make an immunity determination before the end of that term. Because the motion of the leader of Proud Boys International was based on Trump’s motion, the court denied it as moot.

On January 24, 2025, President Trump filed a motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of absolute immunity. He claimed, among other things, that his speech on January 6, 2021 met the threshold for presidential immunity; he reached out to state and local officials in his capacity as President of the United States; his communications on his Twitter account also fell within the outer perimeter of presidential authority; and that the courts may not inquire into allegations that President Trump failed to take action to stop the events of January 6.

On the same day, President Trump also filed a motion to reconsider denial of his motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds. He claimed that reconsideration was permitted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 54(b) and that the court should reconsider its incitement ruling in light of Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, 143 S. Ct. 2106 (2023).

On February 28, 2025, plaintiffs opposed the motion for summary judgment. They argued that President Trump failed to meet his burden of establishing presidential immunity for the conduct at issue and that his conduct on January 6 was unofficial. President Trump replied to this opposition on April 16, 2025.

On February 28, 2025, plaintiffs also opposed the motion to reconsider denial of President Trump’s motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds. They argued that Counterman was not an intervening change in the law that altered the standard governing the incitement doctrine, and that the court’s First Amendment analysis was consistent with Counterman.

After President Trump took office, the Department of Justice filed a Westfall Act Certification in this proceeding asserting that the acts by President Trump alleged in the various complaints fell within the scope of his employment as President. Under the Westfall Act, such a certification requires the court to substitute the United States as defendant on any tort claims against a federal employee. If granted, this certification would immunize President Trump from personal liability. Plaintiffs moved to strike the Westfall Certification.

On March 31, 2026, Judge Mehta denied defendant Trump's motion for summary judgment except as to the conduct the court determined to be official acts. 2026 WL 880161. His Ellipse speech to the crowd before they stormed the Capitol and most of his tweets from his @realDonaldTrump account were not subject to immunity. However, Trump's Oval Office meeting with Michigan state legislators, two specific tweets, his January 6 Rose Garden remarks, and his interactions with the Department of Justice were part of his official duties and thus immune as official acts for which he could not be held liable. Judge Mehta also granted plaintiffs' motion to strike the Westfall Certification and denied President Trump's motion for reconsideration. Judge Mehta certified his decision for interlocutory review. 2026 WL 880161.

On April 10, 2026, President Trump appealed Judge Mehta's denial of his motion for summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On April 21, 2026, the United States also appealed Judge Mehta's grant of plaintiffs' motion to strike the Westfall Certification.

On June 4, 2026, the district court granted motions made by President Trump and the United States asking the court to stay proceedings pending appellate review. 2026 WL 1593628. Specifically, the district court stayed all proceedings in all cases except Smith v. Trump in which the court stayed discovery only as to President Trump but permitted all other discovery to continue.

On July 22, 2026, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the ruling that President Trump's tweets are to be cloaked in official-acts immunity, granted plaintiffs' request to certify for interlocutory review, and granted them an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

In the appellate case, President Trump and the United States filed separate briefs on September 1, 2026. The briefing schedule extends into December 2026 with oral arguments directed to be scheduled in early January 2027.


1:21-cv-00400 1:21-cv-00586	Docket [PACER] Thompson v. Trump	March 5, 2021	March 5, 2021 Docket
1 1:21-cv-00400	Complaint Thompson v. Trump	Feb. 16, 2021	Feb. 16, 2021 Complaint
1 1:21-cv-00586	Complaint Thompson v. Trump	March 5, 2021	March 5, 2021 Complaint
11-1 1:21-cv-00400	Amended Complaint Thompson v. Trump	April 7, 2021	April 7, 2021 Complaint
66 1:21-cv-00400	Memorandum Opinion and Order Thompson v. Trump	Feb. 18, 2022	Feb. 18, 2022 Order/Opinion 590 F.Supp.3d 46
75 1:21-cv-00400	USCA Order Smith v. Trump U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit	March 16, 2023	March 16, 2023 Order/Opinion
78 1:21-cv-00400	Order Thompson v. Trump	Feb. 16, 2024	Feb. 16, 2024 Order/Opinion
90 1:21-cv-00400	Motion for Stay Thompson v. Trump	March 19, 2024	March 19, 2024 Pleading / Motion / Brief
91 1:21-cv-00400	Motion to Join ECF No. 90 Thompson v. Trump	March 20, 2024	March 20, 2024 Pleading / Motion / Brief
93 1:21-cv-00400	Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Donald J. Trump’s Motion to Stay Immunity Discovery Thompson v. Trump	March 26, 2024	March 26, 2024 Pleading / Motion / Brief

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
	Feb. 16, 2021	Case Assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zsb) (Entered: 02/16/2021)	PACER
	Feb. 16, 2021	ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE OF ERROR re 1 Complaint; emailed to mbekesha@judicialwatch.org, cc'd -1 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Blank or missing coversheet. Please use the cover sheet at https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/new-case-forms & file using the event Civil Cover Sheet., 2. COMPLIANCE DEADLINE is by close of business today. This case will not proceed any further until all errors are satisfied. (adh, ) Modified to enter in error on 2/17/2021; filed in wrong case. (adh, ). (Entered: 02/16/2021)	PACER
	Feb. 16, 2021	Case Assigned/Reassigned
	Feb. 16, 2021	Notice of QC- New Case
	Feb. 16, 2021	Case Assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zsb)
1	Feb. 16, 2021	COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ADCDC-8202743) filed by BENNIE G. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/16/2021) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on RECAP 2 Summons View on PACER 3 Summons View on PACER 4 Summons View on PACER 5 Summons View on PACER 6 Summons View on PACER	Clearinghouse
2	Feb. 16, 2021	ERRATA (Corrected Civil Cover Sheet) by BENNIE G. THOMPSON re 1 Complaint, filed by BENNIE G. THOMPSON. (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/16/2021)	RECAP
3	Feb. 16, 2021	NOTICE of Appearance by Brian Christopher Corman on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Corman, Brian) (Entered: 02/16/2021)	RECAP
4	Feb. 16, 2021	SUMMONS (5) Issued Electronically as to RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI, OATH KEEPERS, PROUD BOYS INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(adh, ) (Entered: 02/16/2021) 1 Notice and Consent View on PACER	RECAP
	Feb. 16, 2021	Case Assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zsb)
	Feb. 16, 2021	ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE OF ERROR re 1 Complaint; emailed to mbekesha@judicialwatch.org, cc'd -1 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Blank or missing coversheet. Please use the cover sheet at https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/new-case-forms & file using the event Civil Cover Sheet., 2. COMPLIANCE DEADLINE is by close of business today. This case will not proceed any further until all errors are satisfied. (adh, ) Modified to enter in error on 2/17/2021; filed in wrong case. (adh, ).
5	March 1, 2021	WAIVER OF SERVICE. RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI waiver sent on 2/25/2021, answer due 4/26/2021. (Corman, Brian) (Entered: 03/01/2021)	RECAP
6	March 3, 2021	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DONALD J. TRUMP served on 2/23/2021, answer due 3/16/2021 (Corman, Brian) (Entered: 03/03/2021)	RECAP
7	March 5, 2021	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. OATH KEEPERS served on 3/2/2021, answer due 3/23/2021 (Corman, Brian) (Entered: 03/05/2021)	RECAP
8	March 11, 2021	NOTICE of Appearance by Jesse R Binnall on behalf of DONALD J. TRUMP (Binnall, Jesse) (Entered: 03/11/2021)	RECAP
9	March 15, 2021	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, or Otherwise Plead by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Binnall, Jesse) (Entered: 03/15/2021) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on PACER	RECAP
	March 16, 2021	Order
	March 16, 2021	MINUTE ORDER granting 9 Consent Motion for an Extension of Time. Mr. Trump shall file his answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by no later than April 26, 2021. Signed by Amit P. Mehta on 3/16/2021. (lcapm3)
	March 23, 2021	Order
10	March 23, 2021	Consent MOTION for Extesntion of Time to Answer or Otherwise Plead to the Complaint by OATH KEEPERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morgan, Kerry) Modified event title on 3/25/2021 (znmw). (Entered: 03/23/2021) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on PACER	RECAP
	March 23, 2021	MINUTE ORDER granting 10 Consent Motion for an Extension of Time. Defendant Oathkeepers shall file its answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by no later than April 26, 2021. Signed by Amit P. Mehta on 3/23/2021. (lcapm3)
	March 30, 2021	MINUTE ORDER. The Court having considered Plaintiffs' 15 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Stephen Shackelford, Jr., and it appearing to the Court that the attorney referenced therein meets the requirements for pro hac vice admission under Local Civil Rule 83.2(d), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Stephen Shackelford, Jr., is ADMITTED to practice before the Court pro hac vice. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Carl J. Nichols on March 30, 2021. (lccjn2)
	April 7, 2021	Order on Motion for Leave to File
	April 7, 2021	MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) permits a plaintiff to amend his pleading once as a matter of right up to 21 days after a defendant has served a responsive pleading or motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). No defendant has yet filed a responsive pleading or motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff timely seeks to amend his pleading as a matter of right. The Amended Complaint therefore will be the operative pleading in this case. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint by May 26, 2021. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 4/7/2021. (lcapm3)
11	April 7, 2021	MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by BENNIE G. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/07/2021) 1 Exhibit Amended Complaint View on RECAP 2 Text of Proposed Order View on PACER	RECAP
	April 7, 2021	MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) permits a plaintiff to amend his pleading once as a matter of right up to 21 days after a defendant has served a responsive pleading or motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). No defendant has yet filed a responsive pleading or motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff timely seeks to amend his pleading as a matter of right. The Amended Complaint therefore will be the operative pleading in this case. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint by May 26, 2021. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 4/7/2021. (lcapm3)
12	April 9, 2021	REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE filed by BENNIE G. THOMPSON, BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, KAREN R. BASS, PRAMILA JAYAPAL, MAXINE WATERS, JERROLD NADLER, HENRY C. JOHNSON, STEPHEN I COHEN, BARBARA J. LEE, VERONICA ESCOBAR, MARCIA KAPTUR.(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/09/2021)	RECAP
13	April 16, 2021	SUMMONS (5) Issued Electronically as to ENRIQUE TARRIO, WARBOYS LLC. (eg) (Entered: 04/16/2021)	RECAP
14	April 21, 2021	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. WARBOYS LLC served on 4/19/2021, answer due 5/10/2021 (Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/21/2021)	RECAP
15	April 27, 2021	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Robert B. McDuff, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-8401537. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by KAREN R. BASS, STEPHEN I COHEN, BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, VERONICA ESCOBAR, PRAMILA JAYAPAL, HENRY C. JOHNSON, MARCIA KAPTUR, BARBARA J. LEE, JERROLD NADLER, BENNIE G. THOMPSON, MAXINE WATERS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert B. McDuff)(Sellers, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2021) 1 Declaration of Robert B. McDuff View on PACER	RECAP
16	May 5, 2021	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. WARBOYS LLC served on 4/23/2021, answer due 5/14/2021 (Corman, Brian) (Entered: 05/05/2021)	RECAP
17	May 5, 2021	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. ENRIQUE TARRIO served on 4/23/2021, answer due 5/14/2021 (Corman, Brian) (Entered: 05/05/2021)	RECAP
18	May 5, 2021	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. ENRIQUE TARRIO served on 5/1/2021, answer due 5/22/2021 (Corman, Brian) (Entered: 05/05/2021)	RECAP
19	May 5, 2021	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. WARBOYS LLC served on 5/1/2021, answer due 5/22/2021 (Corman, Brian) (Entered: 05/05/2021)	RECAP
	May 10, 2021	MINUTE ORDER granting 15 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Robert B. McDuff is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/10/2021. (lcapm3)
	May 10, 2021	Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
	May 10, 2021	MINUTE ORDER granting 15 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Robert B. McDuff is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/10/2021. (lcapm3)
20	May 26, 2021	MOTION to Dismiss by OATH KEEPERS. (Morgan, Kerry) (Entered: 05/26/2021)	RECAP
21	May 26, 2021	MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) by RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, Joseph) (Entered: 05/26/2021) 1 View on RECAP 2 View on RECAP	RECAP
22	May 26, 2021	MOTION to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Binnall, Jesse) (Entered: 05/26/2021) 1 Exhibit 1 View on RECAP 2 Text of Proposed Order View on RECAP	RECAP

Case: Lee v. Trump

1:21-cv-00400 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Docket for: LEE v. TRUMP

Case Details