The lawsuits, brought by members of Congress and police officers scarred by the attack, have been pending since 2021, but were delayed amid Trump’s attempt to have courts declare him immune from lawsuits related to his actions as president.

For now, that means a ruling by a Washington, D.C., appeals court that found Trump could be sued for his role in stoking the violence on Jan. 6 will stand. The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel, which included a Trump-nominated judge, concluded that Trump’s comments to his supporters on Jan. 6 appeared to be made in his capacity as a re-election candidate, not in his official capacity. as president.

But the decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals did not completely close the door on Trump trying to prove that the event was official.

Under an agreement with plaintiffs in those cases, Trump had a deadline of Thursday to stop the effect of the appeals court decision by filing an appeal to the Supreme Court. None had shown up as of Thursday night, and his assistants indicated none were expected.

But Trump allies say he is leaving the door open to reviving a challenge to the ruling later in the process. He could try another appeal after the next round of investigation is completed and the trial judge issues another ruling on whether the cases can continue.

“President Trump will continue to fight for presidential immunity across the spectrum,” said Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

Even without the civil immunity fight, the Supreme Court is already grappling with a trio of cases that could have a major impact on Trump and his political viability.

Last week, the justices spent more than two hours hearing arguments on whether to uphold or overturn a Colorado Supreme Court decision that Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot because his actions related to Jan. 6 made him a insurrectionary.

The U.S. Supreme Court also agreed to hear a case from another criminal defendant from Jan. 6 that has the potential to overturn two of the four counts Trump faces in the election subversion indictment prosecutors obtained against him last year.

And the justices could discuss at a conference Friday whether to keep that trial on hold while they consider Trump’s claim that former presidents enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution on matters even tangentially related to their official duties.

Although Trump’s attempt to gain criminal immunity carries more urgent and immediate risks, the fight over whether he can face financial sanctions for the same acts has been pending for much longer.

Nearly two years ago, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta rejected Trump’s attempt to assert presidential immunity to dismiss several of the lawsuits stemming from Jan. 6. Mehta said Trump’s speech at the Ellipse normally could have been protected by the First Amendment.

However, the judge said that indications that Trump knew about weapons in the crowd or other imminent threats of violence meant that Trump’s actions and comments as a whole may not have been protected political speech.

“From these alleged facts, it is at least plausible to infer that, when he called on rally attendees to march to the Capitol, the president did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers’ efforts to certify the Electoral College votes. “Mehta wrote. , an appointee of President Barack Obama. “The Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys and others who forcibly entered the Capitol building clearly shared that unlawful objective.”

By Sam