First Amendment scholars have weighed in at the Supreme Court to explain why that amendment’s protections don’t prevent Donald Trump’s presidential disqualification. Now, another outside group is reinforcing that point: Capitol Police officers who defended democracy on Jan. 6.
While a crush of strong briefs have been filed on the docket this week in Trump v. Anderson that have further strengthened the case for the former president’s ineligibility for office, this one adds legal firepower while carrying with it the real-world impact of the insurrection, thanks to the people who were on the front lines.
“On January 6, 2021, amici and their fellow law enforcement officers risked their lives to defend the Capitol from a violent attack, suffering significant physical and psychological injuries in the process,” the officers wrote to the justices (amici being Latin for “friends,” as these briefs from outside parties are called amicus — or “friend of the court” — briefs).
“They were violently assaulted, spat on, tear-gassed, bear-sprayed, subjected to racial slurs and epithets, and put in fear for their lives,” the court filing added.
The brief says later: “Mr. Trump now claims that the First Amendment shields him from any responsibility for the consequences of his actions. There is no reasonable reading of the First Amendment that confers freedom to engage in insurrection.”
While that true statement is almost too obvious to make, it’s in fact necessary to bolster the evident, as Trump looks for any means of escaping constitutional accountability for Jan. 6. It’s also a reminder ahead of next Thursday’s Supreme Court oral arguments that Trump lacks a strong claim for taking office again in the face of the 14th Amendment — and, when it comes to these officers, of what the high court would betray by searching for a way out in Trump’s favor.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.
