Federal Judge Rejects Trump’s Immunity Claims in Sicknick Case

(NewsSpace.com) – Former President Donald Trump is facing a multitude of legal challenges. He’s the subject of several criminal and civil cases in Georgia, New York, and Washington, DC. Last January, Sandra Garza, the domestic partner of Officer Brian Sicknick, who perished on January 7, 2021, sued Trump. A judge has now made a ruling in the case, which is ongoing.

The lawsuit, filed on January 5, 2023, accused Trump of inciting the “violent mob” that went on to attack the Capitol on January 6, 2021. During the melee that ensued, Officer Sicknick was hit with pepper spray in the face. He died the next day in what the DC Medical Examiner’s Office ruled was a death caused by “all that transpired” the previous day. The man who pepper-sprayed Sicknick pleaded guilty to several charges related to the event and received a sentence of more than six years in prison.

Garza wants to hold Trump accountable for Sicknick’s death as well. The former president claims he has absolute immunity as he was commander-in-chief at the time. US District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta disagreed with Trump’s assertions in a 12-page Memorandum Opinion and Order, in which he wrote “the court first addresses, and quickly disposes of” the immunity claim. Of particular interest, Judge Mehta referenced the DC Circuit decision in the case of Blassingame v. Trump, which cited that “when a sitting president acts in his capacity as a candidate for re-election, he acts as office-seeker, not office-holder.” Since Mehta says the case Garza brought forth is “indistinguishable from Blassingame in all respects,” the same sentiment holds true here.

In addition to the cases by Blassingame and Garza, the courts have also ruled against Trump’s claims of absolute immunity in a massive lawsuit brought by Capitol Hill police officers. At the moment, it looks like Trump will be forced to sit as a defendant in these three lawsuits.

Copyright 2024, NewsSpace.com