Former U.S. President Donald Trump intends to sue the Justice Department for $100 million in punitive damages over the 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago estate. He accuses U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray of carrying out a “malicious political prosecution” designed to influence the election and block his re-election bid.
On August 8, 2022, the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, seizing over 100 classified documents, which led to a 37-count felony indictment against Trump by special counsel Jack Smith.
Now 78, Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges, including willful retention of sensitive national defense documents and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Trump’s attorney, Daniel Epstein, has filed an administrative tort claim against the DOJ, arguing that Garland and Wray applied “inconsistent standards” and displayed a “clear dereliction of constitutional principles” in authorizing the search of the former president’s Palm Beach residence, according to a document obtained by The Post.
Epstein argued that Garland and Wray should never have authorized the raid and subsequent indictment of President Trump, as established protocol for former U.S. presidents calls for using non-enforcement methods to retrieve records.
He further stressed that, even if the raid had been deemed necessary, Garland and Wray should have ensured that their agents sought President Trump’s consent, informed his legal team, and pursued a cooperative approach.
“Garland and Wray intentionally deviated from established protocol to target President Trump,” Epstein stated in the memo, which was first reported by Fox News.
The Justice Department has six months to respond to the claim. If no settlement is reached by then, the case will proceed to federal court.
The FBI conducted the search at Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022, resulting in the seizure of over 100 classified documents, which led to a 37-count felony indictment against Trump by special counsel Jack Smith.
However, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika dismissed the case last month, ruling that Smith had been unconstitutionally appointed.