FILE – In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo, Trump supporters try to break through a police barrier at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)
The group of lawmakers and police officers suing Donald Trump over his alleged role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is calling out the president and his legal team for trying to push back the date for a key argument in the case.
As Law&Crime has previously reported, a group of lawmakers — including longtime Trump foil Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif. — and police officers who faced off against the riotous crowd of Trump supporters that day have sued Trump, along with Rudy Giuliani, alleging that Trump directed the assault and helped incite a riot. The cases were originally filed separately, but have been consolidated into one matter before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, a Barack Obama appointee, due to the similarity in legal questions and issues.
One of those legal questions pertains to presidential immunity, and in a Tuesday filing, the plaintiffs accused the president of trying to stall proceedings by asking Mehta to move a hearing about that “pivotal, threshold” issue, as the plaintiffs describe it, into early next year. That request came in a filing on Monday, when Trump’s legal team explained that a newly hired lawyer would not be available on Dec. 19, the scheduled date of the hearing.
The defendants want the hearing moved at least to Jan. 12, 2026, “or the next available date thereafter.”
This, the plaintiffs say, should not be allowed — especially since the December date was chosen during a Nov. 21 hearing specifically based on the availability of Trump’s own legal team.
“Prior to setting this date, the Court inquired of all counsel to confirm that December 19, 2025, was an available date for the argument and all counsel — for Defendant, for the United States, and for Plaintiffs — agreed to that date,” the plaintiffs’ filing says. “By scheduling the hearing for December 19, 2025, the Court specifically accommodated the unavailability of Defendant’s counsel for several dates earlier in December, which had previously been represented to the Court.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
According to Trump’s Monday filing, the extension is needed to bring a newly added attorney — who was retained on Dec. 4, weeks after the Dec. 19 hearing date was set — up to speed. This lawyer “would be at a material disadvantage” if he weren’t given the extra time to “review the record, prepare, and present argument on Defendant’s behalf,” the motion says.
The plaintiffs say the late addition to the legal team doesn’t justify rescheduling the hearing.
“As a general matter, the unavailability of a preferred attorney is not a sufficient basis to postpone a hearing,” the filing says. “The decision to select counsel who is unavailable on the set date is a matter within Defendant’s control, and Defendant has had ample time and notice to staff the argument with counsel who will be available for the date on which all counsel agreed.”
“It would be unreasonable to postpone the hearing to a later date after the Court and all Parties agreed to the current date, solely because Defendant at this late hour has hired another lawyer to present arguments at the hearing,” the plaintiffs add.
While the plaintiffs acknowledged that they would normally be open to accommodating a scheduling request like this, the filing says that the defendants’ request comes too late.
“Plaintiffs’ counsel cleared their schedules to prepare for this hearing, relying on the date set by the Court and are deeply engaged in preparation for the hearing,” the filing says. “Some of our clients have also rearranged their schedules in order to attend the hearing on the date scheduled.”
The suggested date change is not a “modest” one, as the defendants argue, the plaintiffs say.
“Rather than the ‘modest change’ in the hearing date that the Defendants propose, therefore, postponement of this hearing may lead to a significant delay,” the plaintiffs argue. “As these cases are nearly five years old, no further delay should be allowed to resolve the pivotal, threshold issue whether President Trump is entitled to immunity from suit.”
The plaintiffs added that one of their own lawyers would not be available by Trump’s requested date, as they “scheduled a vacation, relying on the current scheduled hearing date[.]”
Read the plaintiffs’ filing here and Trump’s motion to move the hearing date here.
