Nwanguma v. Trump: The Louisville Rally Lawsuit Over Incitement of Violence Against Protesters
Tier 2Dismissed on Appeal2016-03-01 to 2018-09-11
Factual Summary
On March 1, 2016, Donald Trump held a campaign rally at the Kentucky International Convention Center in Louisville, Kentucky. During the event, several protesters were physically pushed, shoved, and struck by Trump supporters in the crowd. Three individuals who attended the rally to protest peacefully, Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah, and Henry Brousseau, filed a lawsuit against Trump and his campaign, alleging that Trump had incited the violence against them.
The lawsuit centered on Trump's statements from the stage during the rally. Video recordings showed Trump repeatedly directing the crowd to remove the protesters, saying "Get 'em out of here." The plaintiffs alleged that Trump's commands incited his supporters to use physical force against the protesters as they were ejected.
On April 1, 2017, U.S. District Judge David J. Hale of the Western District of Kentucky denied Trump's motion to dismiss the incitement claim. In his ruling, Judge Hale found that it was "plausible" that Trump's words had incited violence and that the claim could proceed to discovery and trial. The ruling drew national attention as the first federal court finding that a presidential candidate could potentially be held liable for inciting violence at a campaign rally.
Trump appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On September 11, 2018, a three-judge panel reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court applied the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard, which holds that speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action." The Sixth Circuit found that Trump's statement "Get 'em out of here" did not constitute incitement under this standard, particularly because Trump also said "Don't hurt 'em" during the same sequence of remarks. The court wrote that "the notion that Trump's direction to remove a handful of disruptive protesters from among hundreds or thousands in attendance could be deemed to implicitly incite a riot is simply not plausible, especially where any implication of incitement to riotous violence is explicitly negated by the accompanying words, 'don't hurt 'em.'"
The appellate ruling dismissed the incitement claim. Other claims in the lawsuit, including negligence claims against individual rally attendees who physically assaulted the protesters, were addressed separately.
Primary Sources
1. Nwanguma v. Trump, 273 F. Supp. 3d 719 (W.D. Ky. 2017), District Court opinion denying motion to dismiss
2. Nwanguma v. Trump, No. 17-6290 (6th Cir. 2018), Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reversing the district court
3. Video recordings of the March 1, 2016 Louisville campaign rally
Corroborating Sources
1. CNN: "It's plausible Trump incited violence, judge rules in OK'ing lawsuit," April 2, 2017
2. FindLaw: "NWANGUMA v. TRUMP (2018)," Sixth Circuit opinion
3. Columbia University Global Freedom of Expression: "Nwanguma et al v. Trump et al," case summary
4. First Amendment Watch: "Does the First Amendment Protect Trump on Incitement to Riot?" analysis
5. Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse: "Nwanguma v. Trump 3:16-cv-00247 (W.D. Ky.)," case record
Counterarguments and Context
Trump and his legal team argued throughout the proceedings that his statements at the rally were protected political speech and that directing event staff and security to remove disruptive individuals is a standard practice at large events. The Sixth Circuit agreed, finding that the Brandenburg standard was not met. The appellate court emphasized the words "don't hurt 'em" as an explicit negation of any implied call to violence. First Amendment scholars were divided on the ruling, with some arguing that the Brandenburg standard is too narrow to account for the dynamics of a large, emotionally charged rally where a candidate's words could foreseeably lead to physical confrontation, and others arguing that the standard appropriately protects robust political speech. The fact that protesters were physically assaulted at the rally is not disputed. The legal question was whether Trump's words caused that violence in a manner that would create legal liability. The Sixth Circuit concluded they did not. The case illustrates the tension between the legal standard for incitement and the practical consequences of inflammatory rhetoric at political events.
Author's Note
This entry is classified as Tier 2 because the incitement claim was formally filed in federal court, survived a motion to dismiss at the district court level, and was adjudicated on appeal. The Sixth Circuit's reversal is the final legal determination in the case. The entry documents both the initial finding of plausibility and the appellate reversal in full, as both are relevant to the legal and factual record.