WASHINGTON, Feb 18 (Reuters) – Former U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday lost an attempt to dismiss charges accusing him of instigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In a lengthy written ruling, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said three lawsuits filed by Democratic members of Congress and two police officers could go to trial.

Mehta agreed to remove Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani and Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who were named co-defendants, from prosecution.

A 1982 Supreme Court case holding that presidents are shielded, or immune, from prosecution for their official acts, looms large in the litigation.

Mehta ruled that Trump was not immune from prosecution, determining that the then-president’s fiery speech before the attack on Capitol Hill was not within the scope of his official presidential duties.

“To deny a president immunity from civil damages is no small feat. The court well understands the seriousness of his decision,” Mehta said. “But the alleged facts of this case are unprecedented, and the court believes its decision is consistent with the purposes underlying such immunity.”

Jesse Binnall, an attorney for Trump, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump and his co-defendants have argued that their remarks leading up to the Jan. 6 attack were constitutionally protected free speech.

Democratic lawmakers, including U.S. Representatives Eric Swalwell and Jerry Nadler, have invoked an 1871 law passed to combat the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan that prohibits political intimidation.

The lawsuits alleged a conspiracy between Trump and rioters to prevent congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.

Without commenting on the merits of this theory, Mehta said the allegation was detailed enough to proceed with discovery, a process in which litigants exchange evidence and collect testimony.

“From these alleged facts, it is at least plausible to infer that when he called on protesters to come to the Capitol, the President did so in order to disrupt lawmakers’ efforts to certify Electoral College votes. “, wrote Mehta. .

Joseph Sellers, an attorney representing Democratic lawmakers, said the decision breaks new legal ground and “demonstrates the extraordinary nature of the conduct that then-President Trump was engaged in.”

Reporting by Jacqueline Thomsen in Washington and Jan Wolfe in West Palm Beach, Florida; Editing by Howard Goller and Alistair Bell

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.