Judge hears arguments in lawsuits against Trump, Barr over Lafayette Square

Biden administration lawyers asked a federal judge on Friday to throw out lawsuits by protesters who were dispersed from Lafayette Square last June so that former President Donald Trump could be photographed in front of a church with a Bible in his hands, saying the new administration isn’t likely to repeat the incident.

Justice Department lawyers presented their arguments before U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich with regard to a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Black Lives Matter D.C. and several protesters.

Authorities used tear gas, rubber bullets and flashbang shells to break up their protest over the death of George Floyd, a Black man who was killed in Minneapolis police custody. The dispersal, which came less than an hour before a citywide curfew went into effect, was part of the security measures taken for Mr. Trump to walk to nearby St. John’s Episcopal Church for the photo op.

Named in lawsuit are Mr. Trump, former Attorney General William Barr, former Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Park Police, the D.C. National Guard, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Metropolitan Police Department and the Arlington County Police Department.

The plaintiffs argue they had been peacefully protesting at the square near the White House when they were subjected to a targeted “attack” in violation of their First Amendment right to assemble and their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful seizure.

But the Biden Justice Department said the lawsuit is unnecessary.

“These lawsuits seek to prevent a recurrence of the June 1st events in Lafayette Square,” Justice Department lawyer Christopher Hair said, adding that the “change in administration” makes their claims moot.

In addition, Justice Department attorney John Martin argued that securing an area for the president is a matter of national security.

“Presidential security is a paramount government interest that weighs heavily in the Fourth Amendment balance,” Mr. Martin said.

He added that qualified immunity protects both the government and law enforcement officials from liability for actions that courts have not “clearly established” as unlawful.

“No officer has ever been denied qualified immunity for his efforts to clear a public area,” Mr. Martin said.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys, however, said that various protesters were injured by the officers who used excessive force despite being unprovoked.

“Law enforcement advanced on the peaceful protesters, spraying them with tear gas, cutting them with rubber bullets, dropping smoke bombs and incendiary grenades, and using batons and shields … like weapons to literally club those in their path, your honor,” said Randy Mastro, an attorney from the ACLU of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Mastro showed the judge photos and videos of police deploying the chemical irritants on the demonstrators.

“What was it like for the protesters fleeing that scene in harm? Many of them [were] injured, fearing for their lives,” he said. “There is a brief glimpse of what it was.”

The excessive use of force, he said, was due in part to Mr. Trump’s tweets calling the protesters “domestic terrorists and enemies of the United States.”

“[I]t appears from the president’s own words that these protesters were targeted because of their viewpoint, their message, their speech,” Mr. Mastro said.

The judge said she expects to issue a ruling soon on whether to dismiss the four lawsuits.