Court: Trump can seek to have protester lawsuit dismissed

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


Updated 4:39 pm, Wednesday, November 1, 2017

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A federal court says attorneys for President Donald Trump can seek the dismissal of a lawsuit that accuses him of ordering supporters to rough up protesters at a Kentucky rally.

A 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Wednesday that they can seek to reverse a lower court's decision allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

Writing for the Cincinnati-based panel, Judge David W. McKeague said the court should ensure claims are on "solid footing" before allowing the lawsuit to continue.

An attorney for the protesters, Greg Belzley, says he looks forward to "the next stage of the battle." Trump's attorneys didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Court-Trump-can-seek-to-have-protester-lawsuit-12324357.php

[McCamy Taylor]

1. But but but....it was ok to sue a potus when he was dem

[onenote]

2. The two cases are not comparable

In Clinton v. Jones, the issue was whether a civil suit could be brought against a sitting president. The district court ruled no and deferred (not dismissed) the case without prejudice to its being brought after Clinton left office (and also allowed discovery to continue while Clinton is in office). That decision was appealed and the Circuit Court reversed the district court and the Supreme Court affirmed. At no point were the merits of the complaint considered

in the Trump case, the district court denied Trump's argument that, as a matter of law, the complaint failed to state a claim for incitement upon which relief could be granted under Kentucky law and under Supreme Court precedent regarding the intersection of the First Amendment and the crime of incitement That decision normally would not be appealable, but the district court certified the case for interlocutory appeal. The initial issue considered by the appeals court was merely whether to let that appeal continue. Because the underlying issue on appeal involves a "controlling question of law' (i.e., whether the complaint states a "plausible" and constitutionally permissible claim of incitement).