It could be more detailed, but the headline is accurate, the DOJ jumped into the middle of this case when they didn’t have to (just like they did with the E. Jean Carol one until enough people called them on their shittiness to get them to reverse course) and now is volunteering to commit taxpayer dollars to pay any damages Trump could be found liable for as part of a broader effort to have this whole lawsuit because the DOJ really doesn’t like talking about police officers committing brutality after being ordered by their superiors to do so.

Justice Department attorneys said in a notice filed in federal court in Washington late Monday that Trump is entitled to U.S. government support in the civil case because the suit’s allegations stem from his work as president.

“On the basis of the information now available … I find that Donald J. Trump was acting within the scope of federal office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the plaintiffs’ claims arise,” wrote James Touhey Jr., the head of the Torts Branch in DOJ’s Civil Division.

Justice Department attorneys also filed a motion to dismiss the claims against Trump

Also,

I would think they should have stuck with suing The President rather than Trump even if that meant no financial reward.

I know they can and I’m pretty sure they are pursuing both forms of liability. Lawsuits usually involve plaintiffs making a bunch of different arguments with the expectation that one or more will get dismissed.

There is no SCOTUS decision that forces the DOJ to make any arguments. They are going into court entirely of their own accord to protect some mysterious bullshit idea about the authority of the Executive branch that I don’t think they even really understand, but it’s just become such a reflexive thing for them to do since Nixon they keep doing it even when it means giving cover to a traitor like rhey are here.

I don’t know the specifics around this case but if for instance The President ordered protesters to be “taken care of” and they were killed, or even in the more realistic situation where police used excessive force, is it not possible that someone could sue the federal government for violating their rights? And I don’t mean first amendment rights but whatever case law prevents the use of excessive force (in addition to 1A supporting it). Would a reasonable judge find that even the President is permitted to violate human rights (I’m realizing how stupid this sounds as I type it) when there is no perceived threat?

Everyone has thrown around the example of POTUS killing anyone for any reason but is that an actual legit thing? I have a very hard time believing this would be the case in reality.