United States Court of Appeals
         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT



Argued December 7, 2022           Decided December 1, 2023

                        No. 22-5069

         JAMES BLASSINGAME AND SIDNEY HEMBY,
                      APPELLEES

                             v.

                     DONALD J. TRUMP,
                       APPELLANT



            Consolidated with 22-7030, 22-7031


        Appeals from the United States District Court
                for the District of Columbia
                    (No. 1:21-cv-00858)
                    (No. 1:21-cv-00586)
                    (No. 1:21-cv-00400)



    Jesse R. Binnall argued the cause for appellant. With him
on the briefs were David A. Warrington, Jonathan M. Shaw,
and Gary M. Lawkowski.

    Joseph M. Sellers argued the cause for appellees. With
him on the brief were Brian Corman, Alison S. Deich, Philip
Andonian, Patrick A. Malone, Heather J. Kelly, Anna Kathryn
                               2
Barnes, Matthew Kaiser, Sarah R. Fink, Cameron Kistler,
Erica Newland, Kristy Parker, Helen E. White, Genevieve C.
Nadeau, and Benjamin L. Berwick.

     Elizabeth B. Wydra and Brianne J. Gorod were on the
brief for amici curiae Law Professors in support of appellees.

    Joshua Matz, Raymond P. Tolentino, Carmen Iguina
Gonzalez, and Alysha M. Naik were on the brief for amici
curiae Former White House and Department of Justice
Officials in support of appellees.

    Joseph M. Meyer, Debo P. Adegbile, and Mark C. Fleming
were on the brief for amici curiae Former Diplomats and
Foreign Policy Officials in support of appellees.

     Kathleen R. Hartnett and David S. Louk were on the brief
for amicus curiae Jared Holt in support of appellees.

    Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, KATSAS, Circuit Judge,
and ROGERS, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge SRINIVASAN.

    Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge KATSAS.

   Opinion concurring in part filed by Senior Circuit Judge
ROGERS.

    SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge: Since the Supreme Court’s
decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 

 (1982),
Presidents have carried out their official responsibilities free
from any exposure to civil damages liability. Nixon established
a President’s absolute immunity from civil damages claims
predicated on his official acts. The object of a President’s
                                3
official-act immunity is to assure that he can fearlessly and
impartially discharge the singularly weighty duties of the
office.

     The President, though, does not spend every minute of
every day exercising official responsibilities. And when he
acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to
enjoy immunity from damages liability just because he happens
to be the President. Rather, as the Supreme Court made clear
in Clinton v. Jones, 

 (1997), a President’s official-
act immunity by nature does not extend to his unofficial
actions. When he acts in an unofficial, private capacity, he is
subject to civil suits like any private citizen.

     This appeal calls for us to apply those key decisional
precedents on presidential immunity to a decidedly
unprecedented event involving the presidency: the riot at the
Capitol on January 6, 2021, just as Congress convened to
tabulate the Electoral College vote and declare the person
elected President. The plaintiffs in the cases before us are
Capitol Police officers and members of Congress who were at
the Capitol that day. They seek civil damages for harms they
allege they suffered arising from the riot. Although they sue
various persons, the sole defendant named in all the cases
consolidated before us is former President Donald J. Trump.

     The plaintiffs contend that, during President Trump’s final
months in office, he conspired with political allies and
supporters to obtain a second term despite his defeat in the
2020 election. He allegedly advanced that cause before
January 6 by repeated