On March 2, 2021, Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia briefly paused the criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump concerning his role in the events of January 6, 2021, at the Capitol Building.
Trump’s attorney, Michael van der Veen, had filed a motion two days prior to have the charges dismissed and requested a stay on all proceedings during its appeal. Citing Trump’s First Amendment rights of free speech under the U.S. Constitution, the motion alleged that the Department of Justice (DOJ) violated Trump’s right to due process when they indicted him on charges of inciting a riot.
The DOJ argued that Trump’s statement at the rally—telling his supporters to “fight like hell”—was not protected free speech and incited violence. They also argued that due process was not violated because Trump was properly notified of the charges before they were brought against him. With Judge Mehta’s pause on the proceedings, the outcome of Trump’s motion remains undecided—at least for now.
This stay could be of particular importance as more information continues to emerge regarding the events on January 6. While the Capitol riot has seen a number of arrests since, questions linger regarding the involvement of other members of the former president’s staff and their potential role in the event.
Trump’s motion to dismiss underscores the impact of the former president’s words and actions on that day and the confusion that has surrounded his intentions. Though often silenced when speaking about the events, the former president has now done his best to leverage the resources of the legal system to attempt to clear his name. The impact of Judge Mehta’s decision, however, likely won’t be seen until further down the line.
Given the severity of the charges, the case against Trump carries significant implications and sets a precedent for all political speech going forward. Judge Mehta’s decision to temporarily stay the proceedings provides insight into the matter that will be necessary as the facts of the case continue to unfold. At this point, the future of the case remains uncertain and the effects of Judge Mehta’s decision—to pause or to proceed—are yet to be seen.