Police guarding the US capitol against riots on January 6, 2021, as Congress certified the 2020 election results, were punched, shoved, dragged down steps and pulled into the crowd. Some officers were hit in the face with bear spray, struck with flagpoles or had their shields and batons used against them.

Now, dozens of people pardoned by President Donald Trump after convictions for assaulting or interfering with law enforcement that day are suing the US government for millions of dollars, alleging mistreatment by prosecutors, federal agents and prison officials.

At least 199 people file lawsuitsThe number of civil lawsuits seeking taxpayer compensation filed by those covered by Trump’s sweeping executive clemency for Jan. 6 prosecutions has jumped since the summer, court records show. At least 199 people have filed Jan. 6-related cases and more are expected. Fifty-three of the plaintiffs so far were convicted at trial or pleaded guilty to “assaulting, resisting or impeding” officers.

As these cases unfold in court, justice department officials will have to publicly pick a side on an issue that carries political baggage. Settlements — especially for police assault cases — could trigger blowback from Republicans who took the rare step of criticizing Trump for pardons that they saw as conflicting with their party’s pro-law enforcement stance.

Natalie Harp update: More than 150 January 6 posts show fierce Trump loyalty, ‘We love you’If the department fights these cases, on the other hand, Trump will have to answer to a part of his base that has held up the prosecutions of nearly 1,600 people in connection with Jan. 6 as a paramount example of Democratic “weaponization” of government power against conservatives.

The capitol breach took place as lawmakers met to certify Joe Biden's electoral win after Trump unsuccessfully tried to overturn the results. Lawsuits could lead to taxpayer-funded payoutsSettlements or court-ordered compensation would be paid from what’s known as the Judgment Fund, a permanent source of public money approved by Congress. The fund has already been tapped by the Trump administration for controversial million-dollar payments to settle litigation with Trump’s allies and political supporters, including in cases the government previously fought involving conservative activist Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

The Jan. 6 plaintiffs are relying on a decades-old process under US law for demanding financial recompense from the government. Objections from top Senate Republicans this summer led attorney general Todd Blanche to scuttle plans for a special $1.8 billion fund for victims of alleged government “weaponization” that was expected to handle Jan. 6-related issues. Critics accused the administration of trying to create a separate track for these types of claims to avoid public scrutiny of payouts of taxpayer dollars.

Lawsuits could lead to taxpayer-funded payoutsFormer federal prosecutors who handled these cases slammed the idea that Jan. 6 defendants are entitled to compensation. Michael Romano, who served as a deputy chief of the Justice Department unit that handled the prosecutions, said that they secured convictions “in overwhelming numbers because they were guilty and we had the evidence to back it up.”“We heard people say they were maliciously prosecuted or targeted for their political beliefs at the time we were bringing these cases,” Romano said. “It wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.”

Trump has expressed support for Jan. 6 defendants but hasn’t committed to compensating them.

Asked over the summer if people who assaulted police should get paid, he didn’t offer a full-throated endorsement but didn’t knock down the idea either, telling NBC News, “I wouldn’t be inclined to say so, but I have to see it.”

In response to questions about Jan. 6 compensation claims, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement that “the only pardons anyone should be critical of are from” former President Joe Biden and “extreme liberal Democrat governors.”

The justice department hasn’t signaled how it intends to handle the new crop of Jan. 6 cases. In recent weeks, government lawyers have asked judges to extend deadlines, saying they need more time to review voluminous court filings. A department spokesperson declined to comment on pending litigation.

At least five of the Jan. 6 plaintiffs are former clients of the department’s third-ranking official, associate attorney general Stanley Woodward, whose law practice included criminal defense before Trump appointed him. In response to a question about whether Woodward is recused from Jan. 6 matters, the department shared a statement that he 'complies with all ethics advice.' Justice Department outlines possible legal defencesJustice department lawyers have argued for judges to toss out a handful of early Jan. 6-related lawsuits that were filed before the caseload exploded this summer, including one filed by five defendants from the high-profile prosecution against former members of the Proud Boys extremist group; four of them were convicted of seditious conspiracy against the US government and the fifth was found guilty of other offenses.

These cases preview defenses that the government could raise if it decides to push back, including that the US generally can’t be sued for prosecutors’ “discretionary” charging decisions, that claimants missed the two-year statute of limitations and that grand jury indictments create a “presumption” of probable cause that’s difficult to overcome.

Thomas Ranieri, a lawyer representing the five plaintiffs in the Proud Boys case, said in an email that there haven’t been settlement talks with the government. He said that the Justice Department was “not sympathetic to the harm done to my clients” but had “litigated the case professionally.”Marco Rubio’s visit: Catalyst for a new era of diplomacy“The real problem is that the laws related to constitutional violation claims like these give the government far too many protections,” he said.

The justice department typically defends both current and former officials or agency employees who are sued over work they did in their government roles. Former attorney general Merrick Garland, who is named as a defendant in many of the Jan. 6 lawsuits, has brought on his own counsel, court records show. His attorney Beth Wilkinson declined to comment. Plaintiffs allege mistreatmentThe Jan. 6 plaintiffs broadly contend that they were targeted because of their support for Trump. Many cases feature specific allegations of wrongdoing by prosecutors and investigators, including claims that guilty pleas were coerced or that evidence was misleadingly presented in court.

Some individuals held in jail after their arrest or who served sentences at federal prisons claim they were mistreated, assaulted or received poor medical care. Two of the plaintiffs in the Jan. 6 lawsuits weren't charged but alleged they were wronged by federal officers investigating their family members. One man was convicted of threatening a lawyer associated with the Jan. 6 investigation. The rest were charged or convicted in connection with the events at the Capitol. Two lawyers are handling the bulk of these cases, Peter Ticktin and Alexander Lonstein.

Ticktin, a conservative activist who for years has promoted discredited and unproven 2020 election fraud conspiracy theories, said he expects to file lawsuits on behalf of more than 400 people. Ticktin said that his clients convicted of assaulting or interfering with police were wrongly accused and that he wouldn’t represent someone who committed such a crime. He expressed confidence they could overcome arguments the government may raise about US immunity for prosecution decisions, the two-year limit for filing claims and other defenses.“Maybe the individuals that did this may have some insulation so we can’t sue them individually, that doesn’t mean that the government can just ignore the fact that these things happened,” he said.

Lonstein, who represents more than two dozen Jan. 6 plaintiffs, said in a statement that property damage and violence “should rightfully be condemned,” but the “law requires that justice be applied equally and proportionately.”The Biden administration “weaponized the justice system against these everyday Americans, with unconstitutional charges, harsh and excessive bails, and disproportionate sentences; the egregiousness of which was eclipsed only by the squalid conditions of our client’s confinement,” he wrote.

The Jan. 6 lawsuits are being brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The law requires individuals first to file a claim with the agency at issue. That review isn’t public.

If the claim is denied or the agency doesn’t respond within six months, the person can sue. That puts the claim – and whatever the government does in response – on a public court docket. In response to questions from senators about Jan. 6 this summer, Blanche said in a written response that every claim brought under the tort law 'is reviewed on the merits' and that any settlements are 'made only in the best interest of the United States.'

As of July, Blanche said he wasn't aware of the department settling any Jan. 6-related claim. Judgment fund payments are listed in a public database, although the administration is facing a lawsuit that accuses officials of failing to disclose all of the required information. The justice department contends the challengers lack standing to sue and disputes that the treasury department has an 'independent obligation' under a federal recordkeeping law to release certain details about payments. Michael Gordon, a former Jan. 6 prosecutor, said that the Capitol attack “was the most filmed, documented crime scene ever” and that the plaintiffs face a high procedural bar for suing the federal government, let alone proving their allegations.

Settlements also would create challenging precedents for the Justice Department going forward, he said. Gordon and Romano previously sued the department over the 'anti-weaponization' fund plan.“They would be somehow saying that prosecutors who followed the law and juries who applied the law did something wrong,” said Gordon, who also is among a number of former government lawyers and FBI agents suing over their firings under Trump. “If it’s, ‘Okay we’re going to pay anybody the president pardons,’ that becomes a gateway for corruption.”