Earlier this week, a lawsuit against President Trump was dismissed. The suit was filed by three protesters who accused the president of ‘inciting to riot’ after “they were roughed up at a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville, Kentucky during Trump’s White House run.” The decision to dismiss the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said they “did not state a valid claim under Kentucky law against Trump or his campaign, and Trump’s speech was protected by the First Amendment because he did not specifically advocate violence.” The suit was dismissed on a 3-0 vote.
Earlier this week, a lawsuit against President Trump was dismissed. The suit was filed by three protesters who accused the president of ‘inciting to riot’ after “they were roughed up at a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville, Kentucky during Trump’s White House run.” The decision to dismiss the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said they “did not state a valid claim under Kentucky law against Trump or his campaign, and Trump’s speech was protected by the First Amendment because he did not specifically advocate violence.” The suit was dismissed on a 3-0 vote.
The protesters who filed the suit were Henry Brousseau, Kashiya Nwanguma and Molly Shah. According to their lawsuit, they “planned a peaceful protest at the March 1, 2016 rally, in which Trump gave a roughly 35-minute speech that was interrupted several times.” According to them, all three of them were “assaulted, pushed and shoved, with Brousseau punched in the stomach, and unceremoniously removed after Trump repeatedly exhorted supporters to ‘get ‘em out of here.'”
While reviewing the allegations and formulating the court decision, Circuit Judge David McKeague pointed out that during the incident at the rally, Trump told his supporters, “don’t hurt ’em,” which McKeague said amounted to an “express disavowal and discouragement of violence, even if Trump wanted to quell disturbances by having protesters removed.” He added, “the notion that Trump’s direction to remove a handful of disruptive protesters from among hundreds or thousands in attendance could be deemed to implicitly incite a riot is simply not plausible.”
The three judges on the appeals court panel were all appointed during former President George W. Bush’s term.
So how did the plaintiffs respond to the court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit? Well, so far their attorney, Daniel Canon, said in an emailed statement and he plans to seek further review of the court’s decision, which happened to overturn “a lower court judge’s refusal to dismiss the inciting-to-riot claim.” Canon added:
“Mr. Trump, throughout his campaign, intentionally used crowd violence to suppress dissident speech – the kind of core speech that the First Amendment traditionally protects. The court’s opinion today gives him a free pass for that conduct.”
So far the White House and President Trump have yet to respond to requests for comment. However, Michael Carvin, a lawyer for the president, said “Trump did not incite anyone to engage in any unlawful conduct at all,” according to court documents.
Sources:
Trump wins dismissal of ‘inciting to riot’ lawsuit over 2016 rally
Trump wins dismissal of lawsuit brought by protesters accusing him of ‘inciting to riot’
Join the conversation!