On Oct. 30, 2020, just days before the U.S. presidential election, a Biden-Harris campaign bus was traveling along Interstate 35 between Austin and San Antonio when a group of Trump supporters in cars and trucks—a “Trump Train”—surrounded them. For more than an hour, these vehicles drove or swerved in front of the bus, nearly running it off the road. One Trump Train vehicle collided with a Biden-Harris’s staffer’s car that was following the bus. Ultimately, the Trump Train achieved its goal: After the Biden-Harris bus managed to exit the highway, it canceled its remaining campaign stops in Texas.
The harassment of the Biden-Harris campaign bus was a deliberate act of physical intimidation, organized and carried out with a political motive. If American elections are to be held peacefully and democratically, the perpetrators of such actions need to be held accountable. And indeed, several of the Biden campaign’s personnel who were present that day filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages against Trump Train drivers. (The attorneys litigating the case for the plaintiffs include lawyers for the nonprofit organization Protect Democracy, on whose board of advisors I serve.)
The lawsuit, called Davis v. Cisneros, rests in part on a Reconstruction-era statute that was designed to provide redress for politically motivated violence: the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. In the past several years, as the incidence of political violence has grown, plaintiffs seeking redress have brought a variety of suits under the Klan Act, including in connection with Jan. 6. But some Klan Act suits have run into trouble as courts have given that act an unduly restrictive reading providing no liability under the Klan Act unless the defendants conspired to violate rights guaranteed by other sources of law (like the First Amendment or the Voting Rights Act).
The Davis case has the potential to debunk misinterpretations of the act and reaffirm its vitality as a tool for combating political violence. In a 64-page opinion denying the Trump Train defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas explained that the Klan Act creates liability whenever people conspire to use intimidation or threats to prevent citizens from engaging in lawful activity supporting candidates in federal elections, whether or not the conspirators’ actions amount to violations of anyone’s actual voting rights or free speech rights. The decision in Davis—though not the only recent decision interpreting the statute correctly—is notable for the care and depth of its analysis and the clarity with which it provides guidance for future courts. As a result, it can be a model for addressing future cases under the Klan Act. …