Skip to main content

Justice Dept. moves to dismiss Jan. 6 class action lawsuit

▶ Watch Video: Jan. 6 officer suing to block Trump fund: “These people… should not be rewarded by the government”

The Justice Department moved Monday to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought by Jan. 6 defendants under the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing that the claims brought by the rioters are prohibited because they were filed after the statute of limitations had expired.

“All the claims in the Complaint are ‘forever barred’ due to the failure to timely file the administrative claim with the agency,” the Justice Department said in its filing.

The plaintiffs complained of injuries they had suffered on Jan. 6, 2021, due to “excessive police force.” The Justice Department said that the plaintiffs submitted forms that “were only partially completed” and said some lacked signatures and supporting documentation.  

Also, under the FTCA, plaintiffs have two years to bring a lawsuit, and there are a few additional deadlines that must be met in order to sue the federal government under the FTCA. The Justice Department noted that the plaintiffs alleged “that they were injured by the police actions that occurred on January 6, 2021.” Therefore, the department said in its filing, the rioters had until Jan. 6, 2023, to sue the federal government under the Act.

The Justice Department pointed out that the “earliest claim of the Named Plaintiffs was dated July 29, 2025,” well beyond two-year period allowed under the FTCA.

The department argued that the plaintiffs “knew that they were injured and knew who injured them, but they instead chose to wait until well past the deadline to file the claims.” 

On Sunday evening, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order rescinding a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that was meant to compensate allies of President Trump. The order, however, does not include language that would bar government restitution or payouts to convicted Jan. 6 rioters. 

A former Justice Department lawyer said Blanche’s unilateral rescission of the “anti-weaponization” fund has no legal effect and doesn’t prevent the fund from being revived in the future.

Ohio Rep. running for reelection comes face-to-face in court with the senator whose daughter he’s accused of abusing

Cleveland (CNN) — The senior US senator from Ohio sat with his daughter on a wooden bench in the hallway of the Cuyahoga County courthouse Wednesday, awaiting their turn as a judge in the room next door considered other domestic relations cases, then waiting again as that same judge swiftly declared a break in their case.Bernie Moreno had, for months, declined to wade publicly into the messy custody dispute that had consumed his family and threatened to upend the politics in his state. Now he sat in the thick of it, waiting to hear updates to a series of questions in the case, including whether a judge would grant a restraining order that his daughter’s lawyer had sought against his ex-son-in-law, the congressman Max Miller. Once the proceeding began, he moved to the wooden benches inside amid the press and other family members.Moreno’s daughter, Emily Moreno, was once married to Miller and has accused her now her-ex husband  of abuse, including an incident in which she says he held a gun to her. Miller has denied the assertions, saying his ex-wife is manipulative and suffers from mental illness. Her lawyer denies that.Their case might have been like any of the other domestic matters that went before Judge Debra Boros in the green-carpeted courtroom – except that Miller is also fighting for his political future in a reelection that has drawn national attention. Democrats are bullish they could flip the solidly red district, in part due to people like Moreno and Ohio’s other Republican senator – Jon Husted, who is also on the ballot in November – urging Miller to drop out.As the Morenos chatted on the bench, Miller walked by. The father and daughter bowed their heads.At issue Wednesday was a request not entirely at the heart of the matter.  Andrew Zashin, the lawyer for Emily Moreno, was seeking a restraining order, alleging that Miller grabbed him and another attorney’s bag last month after a hearing in their long-running legal battle. The attorney, filing on Emily Moreno’s behalf, said that it was the second instance in which the Congressman accosted his ex-wife’s legal team outside of court, something Miller’s team has denied.Ultimately the parties agreed to a mutual restraining order: Miller cannot speak to Emily Moreno’s lawyers outside of the court proceedings, and Emily Moreno cannot speak to Miller’s lawyers out of court proceedings.Both sides claimed victory.“What really happened here is their client left in a worse position than when she woke up this morning. When she woke up this morning, she didn’t have a restraining order prohibiting her from having any contact with counsel here,” Miller’s lawyer Larry Zukerman said, alleging that Emily Moreno “verbally attacked my co-counsel.”Emily Moreno’s lawyers deny that.“If that were the case, why didn’t they file something. Just more spin,” Zashin said, adding that he got the restraining order his team had sought.There was also a number of other matters to resolve, including whether an order would be issued in the case to keep court transcripts and depositions from being publicly available, and whether Miller’s private security would have to testify in the case. The judge punted both of those issues for a decision later.Boros was direct with those in the courtroom Wednesday, reminding all parties on two occasions that despite the emotions in the case, there was no excuse to violate court orders – an apparent nod to how the ordinary custody place is playing out in the national spotlight.Attention in the case intensified this month as more media outlets began reporting on allegations that had been part of court filings for months, and Miller faced increasing calls to drop his reelection bid ahead of a key deadline. President Donald Trump even privately told some allies that he didn’t believe Miller can win the race, given the accusations, one source familiar with the conversations previously told CNN.Miller, though, has remained defiant, insisting he would keep running even as the date for party leaders to replace him on the ballot passed. He previously told CNN that Trump had called him and relayed it would be a “tough race.” But Miller insisted he felt good about the decision to stay in.“My daughter is going to grow up one day, and she’s going to see all of this, and she’s not going to see that her father caved to political and social media pressures for something that he never did,” Miller said.After the court hearing on Wednesday, Miller’s attorney blasted the frenzy that has developed around the case, arguing it was unlike most of what he had seen in his time as an attorney.“They are making a political circus out of this,” Zukerman told CNN.The focus on Miller’s political and legal troubles, however, are far from over.After Miller asked the House Ethics Committee for an investigation that he said would clear his name, the committee announced it is “reviewing allegations that Representative Max Miller may have engaged in domestic violence and abuse or illegal drug use.”Miller, who worked as a White House staffer and served in the Marine Corps Reserve before joining Congress in 2023, admitted to last using illegal drugs “several years ago.” He denied currently using drugs but said he takes testosterone replacement therapy in a CNN interview earlier this month.Miller is also still contending with the fallout from his posting a link on social media to hundreds of messages, videos and images involving his ex-wife. While he framed the move as a bid to air out the facts and defend his daughter, the Dropbox folder that Miller shared with his nearly 60,000 followers included sensitive and unredacted details of his own family, including one image that depicted his toddler daughter nude. The photo was taken in the context of an inquiry into an injury the 2-year-old had suffered.Miller’s attorney Aaron Minc took responsibility for the disclosure publicly, and Miller called it “awful,” though he disputed the characterization of it as “shockingly reckless.”“My attorney took full responsibility,” Miller said. “There was never any intent to do that.”The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story