Former President Donald Trump’s recent call for a “citizen’s arrest” of New York Attorney General Letitia James and Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron has ignited legal controversy, with experts suggesting that his statements might have crossed a legal line.
Trump, in his persistent criticism of the two figures involved in an ongoing case without any judge-imposed gag order, escalated the situation by amplifying a post on his Truth Social network that urged a vigilante response, as reported by Raw Story on Thursday, November 16, 2023.
Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson expressed her concerns in a column for MSNBC, asserting that Trump’s call for a citizen’s arrest could be considered incitement. Levinson highlighted that, under New York law, such an arrest is only permitted when a felony is committed in the presence of the arresting citizen, a condition not met in this case.
Levinson emphasized that Trump’s act of sharing the post should be viewed as a suggestion, potentially making him liable for incitement. According to Supreme Court case law, speech can only be punished as incitement if it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
The legal expert argued that Trump’s sharing of the post could be interpreted as encouraging his base to take matters into their own hands, making a lawless arrest. This, Levinson cautioned, sets a dangerous precedent, especially in light of the events of January 6, 2021.
Levinson remarked, “This is not supporting vigilante justice but goading people to engage in criminal behavior,” drawing parallels to the violent events of January 6th. She underlined the potential impact of Trump’s words, quoting Ty Cobb, former White House special counsel, who described such social media posts as “incendiary attacks that do lead to violence.”
The column stressed that Trump’s act of “re-Truthing” goes beyond a legal strategy, serving as a political appeal to his base. Levinson warned that some supporters might interpret this as a call to action, posing a real threat of individuals taking criminal actions based on Trump’s words.
As discussions around Trump’s potential legal culpability gain traction, questions arise about the boundaries between free speech and incitement, particularly in the context of high-profile legal cases. The incident underscores the ongoing challenges in balancing the right to express opinions with the responsibility to avoid inciting unlawful actions.
