Roll Call reports:
Rep. Mo Brooks has argued that the court should remove him as a defendant from the lawsuit because he was acting within the scope of his employment as a member of Congress — a legal protection House members and staff traditionally rely on to do their jobs.
Now, a federal judge has asked the House General Counsel’s Office to weigh in on that part of the unusual member vs. member litigation, which already has generated inflammatory rhetoric on even typically routine issues such as finding Brooks to serve him with the lawsuit.
The question at hand now is whether Brooks qualifies for a federal law that essentially gives immunity to government employees or officials on claims for negligent or wrongful acts — as long as they were acting within the scope of their official duties.
Read the full article. Brooks claims his rally speech in which he incited the rioters was part of his official duties because he was invited to speak by Trump.
The case has a lot of political context. https://t.co/6xwIEjzZgz
— Roll Call (@rollcall) July 12, 2021