A trial centered around a 2020 interaction between then-presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign bus and Trump supporters driving alongside it has kicked off.
While the bus driver and fellow plaintiffs characterized the event as a dangerous confrontation between zealous supporters of then-President Donald Trump and the Biden-Harris campaign, pro-Trump defendants argued that the October 30 incident was a peaceful expression protected by the First Amendment.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Samuel Hall acknowledged during opening statements that pro-Trump motor vehicle convoys brandishing American flags and other patriotic memorabilia were not an uncommon sight during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, Hall argued Monday at the Austin Federal Courthouse that this Trump Train “was different.” “It had a target.”
“We’re here because of actions that put people’s lives in danger,” Hall told the jury.
The legal team representing the plaintiffs—which includes Hall and other attorneys from the nonprofit organizations Texas Civil Rights Project and Protect Democracy—believe that the purpose was to inflict violence and intimidation on those in the Biden-Harris bus.
Among the passengers of the campaign bus were abortion activist and former Texas State Sen. Wendy Davis, campaign director David Gins, and bus driver Timothy Holloway, who are plaintiffs in the case.
Their presentation included a series of graphics attempting to portray the Trump Train as an organized, violent event that not only followed the Biden-Harris campaign bus but also tried to off-road it.
The encounter between the Biden-Harris bus and Trump supporters occurred during an 80-mile trip between San Antonio and Austin, largely in the New Braunfels and San Marcos areas. It was the last day of early voting in Texas that year when the incident took place.
What the defendants “did on October 30, 2020, wasn’t peaceful patriotism,” said Hall. “It was intimidation. The law that they broke gives us the power to hold them accountable.”
Hall and other lawyers for the plaintiffs have contended that the defendants violated the Enforcement Act of 1871 by conspiring “to prevent, by force, intimidation or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner” to a presidential candidate.
The law, also known colloquially as the “Ku Klux Klan Act,” was passed in response to racial and political violence stemming from the hate group, and its use in the trial has been a point of serious controversy.
Erin Elizabeth Mersino, the attorney representing defendant Dolores Park, told the jury that her client was disgusted and in utter disbelief that she would be accused of violating a law with such a history behind it.
“She never assaulted anyone,” insisted Merino.
Park’s Facebook posts and behavior on October 30 are of particular interest to both parties in the case. Plaintiffs pointed to her aggressive language and demeanor in the videos, but defendants noted her distance away from the bus and the seemingly haphazard circumstances that led her to the event in the first place.
Although the defendants have acknowledged some chaotic fervor on the day, they have insisted that their actions are protected by the First Amendment and denied accusations of reckless driving.
Notably, there was one minor traffic collision between a pro-Trump vehicle and a Biden campaign staffer tasked with following the bus in a white car.
“It was a rah-rah group that sought to support and advocate for the candidate of their choice,” Francisco “Quico” Canseco, a lawyer for defendant Eliazar Cisneros, said as he compared the day to a high school football game for Trump supporters.
Stephen and Randi Ceh, former leaders of a Trump Train group, are at the forefront of the accusations by plaintiffs, who have attempted to paint them as organizing the event with the intent of harassment.
The Cehs look forward to “complete vindication on the merits for exercising their God-given, and First Amendment-protected right to free expression,” Jason Greaves, the Ceh’s attorney, told Texas Public Radio.
New Braunfels residents Joeylynn and Robert Mesaros, who promoted the event on their social media, were also anxious for the jury to hear their side of the story on Monday. Their attorney, Jerad Najvar, summarized the key points of his opening statement to Texas Scorecard.
“My clients have been unfairly maligned for three years because these plaintiffs and their attorneys deliberately took clips of video out of context,” emphasized Najvar. “As I told the jury today, we will now show the whole story, and the plaintiffs’ own evidence will make our case.”
Joeylnn Mesaros, a homeschool mom from New Braunfels, further explained that they were confident but on borrowed time. Thus far, they have spent more than $500,000 in legal fees.
“We believe that we will win at trial but fear the plaintiffs will keep appealing because the point for them isn’t the truth—it’s intimidation,” she said. “We need the legal funds to fight to the end and defend everyone’s rights, not just ours.”
A fundraiser is available at FreeSpeechDefender.com.
In 2023, the Measroses filed a motion to dismiss the case against them. Last month, Judge Robert Pitman denied their final attempt to table it.
“While the First Amendment protects forms of political advocacy, the facts of this case go well beyond protected expressive conduct,” wrote Pitman. “A jury could reasonably find that Defendants unlawfully conspired and drove in a dangerous manner such that they threatened or assaulted Plaintiffs.”
Several plaintiffs and defendants initially in the case have dropped out or settled since it was first filed in June 2021. Among the plaintiffs is Eric Cervini, an LGBT journalist who was on the bus and initially brought the case.
The Ceh’s daughter, Hannah Ceh, and her husband, Kyle Kruger, were also initially defendants in the lawsuit but settled under undisclosed circumstances before trial. They have also since apologized for their actions.
Another case brought by the plaintiffs against local law enforcement officials in San Marcos, who they say failed to respond sufficiently to the incident, was settled last year for $175,000.
The police department also agreed to mandatory training for officers to prevent further such situations.
