A coalition of lawmakers and police officers suing Donald Trump over his purported involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack is criticizing the former president and his legal team for attempting to delay a crucial hearing in the case.

As reported by Law&Crime, this lawsuit, led by figures such as Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., along with police officers who confronted the aggressive crowd of Trump supporters, accuses Trump and Rudy Giuliani of orchestrating the assault and inciting the riot. Initially filed as separate lawsuits, these cases have been merged due to overlapping legal issues, now under the jurisdiction of U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, an appointee of Barack Obama.

A central issue in the case is the matter of presidential immunity. In a recent filing, the plaintiffs accused Trump of attempting to delay the process by requesting that Judge Mehta reschedule a hearing on this “pivotal, threshold” issue to a later date. Trump’s legal team, in a Monday filing, argued that a newly appointed lawyer would be unavailable for the hearing initially set for December 19.

The defense is seeking to postpone the hearing to at least January 12, 2026, “or the next available date thereafter.”

The plaintiffs argue that such a delay should not be permitted, emphasizing that the December date was specifically chosen at a November 21 hearing based on the availability of Trump’s legal representatives.

“Prior to setting this date, the Court inquired of all counsel to confirm that December 19, 2025, was an available date for the argument and all counsel — for Defendant, for the United States, and for Plaintiffs — agreed to that date,” the plaintiffs’ filing says. “By scheduling the hearing for December 19, 2025, the Court specifically accommodated the unavailability of Defendant’s counsel for several dates earlier in December, which had previously been represented to the Court.”

According to Trump’s Monday filing, the extension is needed to bring a newly added attorney — who was retained on Dec. 4, weeks after the Dec. 19 hearing date was set — up to speed. This lawyer “would be at a material disadvantage” if he weren’t given the extra time to “review the record, prepare, and present argument on Defendant’s behalf,” the motion says.

The plaintiffs say the late addition to the legal team doesn’t justify rescheduling the hearing.

“As a general matter, the unavailability of a preferred attorney is not a sufficient basis to postpone a hearing,” the filing says. “The decision to select counsel who is unavailable on the set date is a matter within Defendant’s control, and Defendant has had ample time and notice to staff the argument with counsel who will be available for the date on which all counsel agreed.”

“It would be unreasonable to postpone the hearing to a later date after the Court and all Parties agreed to the current date, solely because Defendant at this late hour has hired another lawyer to present arguments at the hearing,” the plaintiffs add.

While the plaintiffs acknowledged that they would normally be open to accommodating a scheduling request like this, the filing says that the defendants’ request comes too late.

“Plaintiffs’ counsel cleared their schedules to prepare for this hearing, relying on the date set by the Court and are deeply engaged in preparation for the hearing,” the filing says. “Some of our clients have also rearranged their schedules in order to attend the hearing on the date scheduled.”

The suggested date change is not a “modest” one, as the defendants argue, the plaintiffs say.

“Rather than the ‘modest change’ in the hearing date that the Defendants propose, therefore, postponement of this hearing may lead to a significant delay,” the plaintiffs argue. “As these cases are nearly five years old, no further delay should be allowed to resolve the pivotal, threshold issue whether President Trump is entitled to immunity from suit.”

The plaintiffs added that one of their own lawyers would not be available by Trump’s requested date, as they “scheduled a vacation, relying on the current scheduled hearing date[.]”

Read the plaintiffs’ filing here and Trump’s motion to move the hearing date here.