Congressman Mo Brooks has been invited by the U.S District Court to file a motion to dismiss a lawsuit concerning the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, which the court says it will honor. 

In the wake of the riots that took place at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C, on Jan. 6, 2021, multiple lawsuits were filed against former President Donald Trump and several of his allies.

One suit was filed in March of 2021 by Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-California) on behalf of several plaintiffs.

Brooks was named a defendant in the lawsuit, along with former President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Rudy Giuliani.

The court dismissed the case against Trump Jr and Giuliani after they filed for dismissal, stating that the evidence against the pair was scant. 

The suit against Brooks was not dismissed as it was for the other two defendants because he had not filed for dismissal.

On Friday, District Judge Amit P. Mehta released his ruling in which he invited Brooks to file a motion to dismiss, which Mehta says he will approve.

The suit alleges that all the defendants share culpability in the violent riot on Jan. 6, which led to the Capitol building being filled with rioters and leaving five people dead. 

“They allege that, before Jan. 6, President Trump and his allies purposely sowed seeds of doubt about the validity of the presidential election and promoted or condoned acts of violence by the President’s followers, all as part of a scheme to overturn the November 2020 presidential election,” the ruling read. 

Brooks’ involvement in the lawsuit began with much controversy. 

In June of 2021, Christian Seklecki, who was charged with serving the suit to Brooks, allegedly entered Brooks’ garage without invitation and gave the suit to Brooks’ wife, Martha. After the incident, Martha Brooks swore out a trespassing warrant against Seklecki.

Brooks initially filed a request for certification under the Westfall Act. Under that Act, if the Attorney General (AG) certifies that a federal employee “was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which claim arose,” the employee shall be dismissed from the action and the United States substituted as the defendant. The certification would not extend to an action brought against an employee for a “violation of a statute of the United States under which such action against an individual is otherwise authorized.”

The court did not accept Brooks’ request since the AG refused to certify that Brooks was operating within the scope of his office when he gave his speech on Jan. 6. However, the court did invite Brooks to file a motion to dismiss the case, stating they would honor such a request.

“The court is prepared to grant such motion for the same reasons it dismisses all claims against Giuliani and Trump Jr.: Brooks’s remarks on Jan. 6 were political speech protected by the First Amendment for which he cannot be subject to liability,” the ruling read.

Brooks told 1819 News he would file for dismissal as soon as he can.

The suit further claimed that Pres. Trump, Trump Jr, and Giuliani shared blame in that they shared the stage with Pres. Trump at the “Save America Rally” on the morning of Jan. 6.

The suit directly pointed to Brooks and the other defendants as being directly responsible for the fraction of individuals in attendance of the rally that actually entered the Capitol building. However, the lawsuit acknowledges that the Proud Boys, operating in small groups, had begun to breach the outer perimeter of the Capitol before the President’s speech had concluded.

"Swalwell’s pleading falls short in two respects,” the ruling read. “First, it fails to plead sufficient facts establishing that Giuliani or Trump Jr. knew of a tacit plan to prevent members of Congress from discharging their duties. The Complaint does not, for example, allege either was involved in the planning of the Jan. 6 Rally or knew in advance that the President would call on rally-goers, including organized groups, to march on the Capitol while Congress was in session. Second, it does not allege that Giuliani or Trump Jr. had the “power” to prevent such conspiracy.” 

To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email