In a high-profile legal battle, a coalition of lawmakers and police officers has taken a firm stand against former President Donald Trump, accusing him and his legal team of attempting to delay a crucial hearing linked to the January 6 Capitol riot. The group, which includes prominent figures like Rep. Eric Swalwell from California, has taken Trump to court, alleging his involvement in orchestrating and inciting the violent events of that day.

This lawsuit, initially filed in separate cases, has been consolidated into a single proceeding under U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, an appointee of Barack Obama. The primary legal issue under scrutiny is whether presidential immunity applies to Trump’s actions on that fateful day. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s recent request to postpone the upcoming hearing on this matter is a strategic move to impede progress.

On Tuesday, the plaintiffs filed a formal objection, highlighting Trump’s attempt to shift the hearing, initially set for December 19, 2025, to a later date. This request was made following a Monday submission by Trump’s legal team, citing the unavailability of a newly hired attorney on the scheduled date. The defense now seeks to reschedule the hearing to at least January 12, 2026, or as soon thereafter as possible.

The plaintiffs firmly oppose this proposed delay, pointing out that the December date was selected based on the availability of Trump’s legal team during a hearing on November 21. According to the plaintiffs’ filing, “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 — including Defendant’s — agreed to that date.” The court had already accommodated previous scheduling conflicts presented by Trump’s legal representatives.

As this legal saga unfolds, the determination of whether Trump will face the music for his alleged role in the events of January 6 remains a significant point of contention, with the scheduling of hearings now adding another layer to the ongoing judicial drama.

“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.