“Trump Train” convoy pictured on Oct. 30, 2020 (exhibit from court documents)
A lingering Ku Klux Klan Act lawsuit over an incident days before the 2020 election, when a Biden-Harris bus was surrounded by Donald Trump supporters on I-35 between Austin and San Antonio in Texas, will move to trial after four defendants’ summary judgment motions failed on Monday.
The court docket only shows that U.S. District Judge Robert Pittman, a Barack Obama appointee, denied motions that were filed by defendants Dolores Park, Joeylynn Mesaros, Robert Mesaros, and Eliazar Cisneros, meaning that Wendy Davis, a Democratic former member of the Texas Senate, former Biden-Harris campaign staffer David Gins, and bus driver Tim Holloway can take their claims of political intimidation to trial on Sept. 9.
The judge’s order is under seal, so the details of his reasoning are unclear, but the defendants’ arguments about the Oct. 30, 2020, incident are a matter of available record.
Cisneros, for example, argued that what the Biden-Harris associated plaintiffs called an “ambush” and “assault,” among “other choice words,” was actually an exercise of First Amendment rights “in a demonstration of support for their favorite candidate for President of the United States,” Trump.
“[T]hat there may have been some negligent driving along the US 35 route does not amount to a conspiracy,” the filing said.
Park, for her part, acknowledged that the night before the incident she “added designs to a flyer for an event at 12:30pm stating ‘BRING FLAGS & WEAR YOUR TRUMP GEAR’ and posted the digital flyer to Facebook,” but she maintained there is “no evidence that any of the co-Defendants saw her flyer” and that she did not know the co-defendants, so there was no conspiracy.
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Trump Train’ convoy boyfriend and girlfriend sued under KKK Act for tailing Biden-Harris campaign bus apologize after settlement
Park claimed instead that “video evidence conclusively shows that [she] drove past the bus without incident.”
Three attorneys for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, have since hailed the clearing of the summary judgment hurdle as a win for democratic values.
“The violence and intimidation that our plaintiffs endured on the highway for simply supporting the candidate of their choice is an affront to the democratic values we hold dear as Americans,” John Paredes of Protect Democracy said in a statement. “Our plaintiffs are bravely standing up against this injustice to ensure that the trauma they endured catalyzes positive change rather than stains our democracy.”
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP partner Samuel Hall said that this case exists because “no individual should face threats or intimidation simply for voicing their support for their preferred candidate.”
“The ability to participate freely in the electoral process is a cornerstone of democracy. In pursuing this case, our plaintiffs bravely seek justice, not merely for themselves but to safeguard the democratic rights of all,” Hall said.
Texas Civil Rights Project senior attorney Christina Beeler added that the plaintiffs’ attorneys are “grateful that our clients finally get to have their day in court to make their voices heard and to hold those accountable who tried to intimidate and threaten them into silence on October 30, 2020.”
In October, a separate lawsuit against the City of San Marcos — over the alleged police failure or refusal to respond “when dozens of individuals in at least forty vehicles formed a self-labeled vehicular ‘Trump Train”” and tailed the Biden-Harris bus — ended in a settlement which involved training of the whole department.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
