Lee v. Trump

Plaintiffs must establish that Trump and his co-defendants formed an actual conspiracy specifically aimed at preventing Congressman Thompson and other members from performing their constitutional duty to certify the electoral votes—a core legislative function clearly protected by § 1985(1). Trump's immunity defense turns on whether his alleged conduct in inciting the January 6 attack constitutes an "official act" within the outer perimeter of presidential authority or, alternatively, unofficial activity beyond the scope of the presidency. Under the Trump v. United States framework, even if Trump's speech or communications occurred in his official capacity, plaintiffs must show the conspiracy was directed at obstructing Congress specifically, not merely that it occurred during his presidency. The case thus hinges on whether courts will treat efforts to disrupt electoral certification as a core congressional duty that § 1985(1) protects against presidential interference, or whether Trump's claimed authority over electoral matters permits immunity coverage.