On January 6, 2021, the U.S. Capitol was breached by a mob of rioters, many armed, demanding that then-President Donald Trump remain in power. Lawmakers described the event as a significant threat to democracy, with some expressing fear for their safety during the attack. Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) recounted the chaos, stating that rioters were threatening to kill members of Congress, while Representative Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) described the moment as surreal, having to prepare for potential violence by accessing a gas mask.

Despite the gravity of the situation, Trump has largely evaded accountability for his actions surrounding January 6. A civil lawsuit, Lee v. Trump, filed by a group of lawmakers, seeks to hold him responsible for allegedly inciting the insurrection and intimidating lawmakers during the certification of the 2020 election results. This case has survived multiple attempts by Trump to dismiss it and is now awaiting a critical ruling from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta.

The lawsuit alleges that Trump violated the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act by inciting violence and intimidation against lawmakers, with support from extremist groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. The outcome of this case could set a precedent regarding the accountability of a sitting president for actions taken while in office.

In the aftermath of the attack, the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 was enacted to clarify the certification process for presidential elections, addressing ambiguities that had previously existed. This legislative change underscores the importance of maintaining democratic processes and preventing future attempts to undermine them.

The events of January 6 have had lasting implications, with a noted increase in political violence and extremism in the U.S. since that day. Reports indicate a rise in attacks targeting government officials and facilities, reflecting a broader trend of political polarization and distrust in democratic institutions. Lawmakers involved in the lawsuit emphasize the need for accountability to prevent a recurrence of such violence and to uphold the principles of democracy.

In a separate legal development, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the New York Civil Liberties Union have filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This lawsuit aims to compel the release of an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion and related documents concerning President Trump’s lethal strikes on civilian boats in international waters.

Since September 2, 2025, the Trump administration has conducted at least 22 strikes, resulting in the deaths of at least 87 civilians, raising significant concerns regarding compliance with both domestic and international law. The U.S. military is prohibited from executing civilians based solely on suspicions of drug smuggling without first pursuing non-lethal alternatives such as arrest. Despite bipartisan criticism of these actions, the administration has indicated that such strikes will continue.

The lawsuit seeks to disclose a legal opinion from the OLC, which is part of the Department of Justice and whose opinions are generally considered binding within the executive branch. This opinion reportedly endorses the strikes as lawful actions in an alleged armed conflict with unspecified drug cartels. Additionally, it is said to provide immunity to personnel involved in these strikes from future criminal prosecution.

Under international law, an armed conflict with a non-state actor, such as a drug cartel, requires that the group be organized and engaged in protracted violence against the state. The assertion that drug cartels meet this criterion in relation to the United States is widely disputed.

The Trump administration has acknowledged the existence of the OLC memo but has not made it publicly available, despite claims of its legality. Members of Congress who have reviewed the memo have expressed concern over its broad implications for the use of force. The ACLU and its affiliates argue that the public has a right to understand the legal justifications for these strikes and the rationale behind the administration's refusal to hold accountable those responsible for civilian casualties. They are urging the court to mandate the release of the requested documents, citing the urgent public interest in transparency regarding the administration's military actions.