The government’s motion is not a ruling on whether police used excessive force. It is a procedural bid to end the case before a court reaches those claims.
The Justice Department moved Monday to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Jan. 6 defendants, arguing that claims tied to the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot came too late under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Justice Dept moves ask a judge to throw out the case before the merits, because the government says the plaintiffs missed mandatory deadlines and submitted incomplete administrative forms.
The lawsuit concerns alleged injuries from what the plaintiffs describe as excessive police force during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot. The government’s reason for seeking dismissal is narrow but potentially decisive: under its reading of the law, the case is time-barred.
The deadline fight is central
According to the Justice Department’s filing, the plaintiffs did not properly present their claims to the government within the window required for lawsuits under the Federal Tort Claims Act, often called the FTCA.
The department argued that “all the claims” in the complaint are “forever barred” because the plaintiffs failed to timely file an administrative claim with the relevant agency. That phrase matters because FTCA cases are built around prerequisites. A plaintiff generally cannot simply sue the federal government first and sort out agency notice later.
The filing also says the earliest claim from the named plaintiffs was dated July 29, 2025. The Justice Department says that was well past the deadline because the alleged injuries occurred on Jan. 6, 2021, and the plaintiffs knew both that they were injured and who they believed injured them.
What the plaintiffs allege
The class action was brought by Jan. 6 defendants who say they were injured during the law enforcement response at the U.S. Capitol. Their allegations, as described in reporting on the filing, center on claims of excessive police force.
That is a different question from whether the plaintiffs met the procedural rules for suing the federal government. A motion to dismiss can end a case without a court deciding whether the underlying alleged misconduct happened as described.
That distinction is likely to shape the next phase. The plaintiffs’ claims are emotionally and politically charged, but the Justice Department is asking the court to focus first on timing, paperwork and whether the government has waived sovereign immunity under the FTCA for claims filed this way.
Why FTCA rules matter
The Federal Tort Claims Act is one of the main legal routes for people seeking damages from the federal government for certain alleged wrongdoing by federal employees. But it is not an open-ended permission slip to sue.
Because the United States generally cannot be sued unless it consents, FTCA requirements are treated as gatekeeping rules. The Justice Department’s argument is that the plaintiffs did not get through that gate.
The government’s filing points to several alleged defects:
- The plaintiffs’ claims were allegedly filed after the statute of limitations had expired.
- Some administrative forms were described as only partially completed.
- The department said some filings lacked signatures or supporting documentation.
- The government argues the plaintiffs waited well past the deadline despite knowing the basis of their alleged injuries.
Those points are not just technical clutter. In cases against the federal government, a missed administrative step can become the whole case.
The politics around compensation
The dismissal request lands as the politics of Jan. 6 compensation remain unsettled. CBS News reported that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order Sunday evening rescinding a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that had been meant to compensate allies of President Trump.
That order, according to the same reporting, does not include language barring government restitution or payouts to convicted Jan. 6 rioters. In other words, the fund issue and the class action are connected by the broader Jan. 6 legal landscape, but they are not the same legal question.
A former Justice Department lawyer told CBS News that Blanche’s unilateral rescission of the fund has no legal effect and would not prevent the fund from being revived later. That leaves open a wider fight over whether any Jan. 6-related compensation could emerge through Congress, the courts or executive action.
Not a ruling on force
The Justice Department’s motion should not be read as a judicial finding that police did or did not use excessive force. It is the government’s argument, and the court has not been reported to have ruled on it.
If the judge accepts the department’s position, the class action could be dismissed on procedural grounds. That would be a significant loss for the plaintiffs, but it would not necessarily produce a detailed public ruling on the facts of the Jan. 6 confrontations.
If the court rejects the motion, the case could move further into litigation, where the plaintiffs would still face other hurdles, including proving their claims and maintaining the case as a class action. The Justice Department would also have additional opportunities to contest liability.
The unresolved questions for plaintiffs
The immediate question is whether the plaintiffs can persuade the court that their claims were timely, properly presented or otherwise allowed to proceed despite the Justice Department’s objections. Their response to the motion will be the next meaningful signal.
For now, the government has chosen a familiar defense in lawsuits against the United States: enforce the filing rules first, fight the facts later if necessary. In a Jan. 6 case loaded with political meaning, the outcome may turn on something far less dramatic — dates, signatures and whether the plaintiffs cleared the FTCA’s administrative threshold.
Leave a Reply