A U.S. District Judge has mandated that the Ashli Babbitt wrongful death lawsuit must go to trial by December 2025 according to The Hill.
In January, the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot during the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, filed a wrongful death assault and battery lawsuit against the U.S. government.
Represented by Judicial Watch, they claim $30 million in damages following the incident where Babbitt attempted to enter a barricaded section near the House chamber and was shot by a Capitol Police officer.
The death, captured on video, has been a contentious issue, stirring debates over law enforcement's use of lethal force during the chaotic events of that day.
The footage and subsequent public discourse prompted extensive legal actions and investigations, which have magnified the complexity of the case.
Initially, a much later trial date was proposed by the court, targeting October or November 2027. However, Judge Ana Reyes labeled this schedule as "unacceptable," insisting on a hastened judicial process.
"The parties are directed to meet and confer on a schedule that puts trial, at the latest, in December 2025," Reyes stated, underlining the urgency and public interest vested in this case.
Discrepancies between the two parties over the scope of pretrial discovery have emerged. The government's attorneys argue for more confined limits, proposing 25 interrogatories and depositions each.
Conversely, Babbitt’s legal team has requested 100 interrogatories and 50 depositions, asserting the complexity of the events justifies a broader examination.
The central issue of the lawsuit challenges the actions of U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, who shot Babbitt. An internal investigation previously cleared Lt. Byrd, concluding he acted lawfully and within department policy. However, the lawsuit contests this finding, arguing Byrd neither identified himself nor issued warnings before firing, and that Babbitt posed no immediate threat.
"Plaintiffs’ requested increases also seek to prevent the use of limits on discovery to shield the facts and avoid or limit liability for the government’s singularly most embarrassing event on January 6 – the officer shooting and killing of Ashli Babbitt," the lawyers for Babbitt's family wrote.
In contrast, government attorneys maintain a narrow view of the case. Their filings reflect a desire to limit the scope to the immediate circumstances surrounding Babbitt's shooting, avoiding a wider probe into the Capitol events.
"Defendant’s requested limitations to document discovery also seek to prevent the use of this litigation to launch a sweeping inquiry into January 6 that far exceeds the scope of permissible discovery and the claims presented in this lawsuit," the government's proposal stated.
This legal battle unfolds against the backdrop of January 6, when Babbitt was among four rioters who died, though the others succumbed to natural causes and an accidental overdose according to official reports. The incident has sparked a broader debate about security, law enforcement responses to civil disturbances, and the adequacy of measures in place to prevent such breaches of the Capitol.
The outcome of this lawsuit may set precedents for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly involving law enforcement's use of force during riots or civil unrest. Both parties are preparing for an intensive discovery phase, where every detail of the incident might be scrutinized under legal and public observation.
"The facts speak truth," reads the lawsuit. "Ashli was ambushed when she was shot by Lt. Byrd." This statement encapsulates the core argument of Babbitt's family: a quest for accountability and a challenge to the official narrative surrounding her death.
As the case moves towards the pretrial phase, it will likely generate significant public and media attention, providing a detailed narrative of those fatal few seconds and their larger implications. This trial could become a focal point for discussions on rights, responsibilities, and the delicate balance of security versus civil liberties in democratic contexts.