Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A First Whack Against New York Lawfare
Although the news is dominated with stories of Biden and his betrayal of the American people, also known as lying about his mental acuity, there are other hopeful actions that suggest that lawfare will finally get its first major test. Attorney General of Missouri Andrew Bailey is fighting back for the people of Missouri, for other states and for Donald
Trump:
Missouri filed a lawsuit against the state of New York on Wednesday seeking to lift the gag order imposed against former President Trump during his hush money trial and delay sentencing for his conviction in that case until after the November election.
Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York in May. Missouri claims the prosecution is politically motivated and is interfering with Missourians’ rights to hear from a presidential candidate, since Trump is currently under a limited gag order related to the case and is set to be sentenced in September.
Missouri’s lawsuit petitions the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing it has jurisdiction because the suit points to an interstate conflict. The court, which completed its term this week, can decide to take up this case on an emergency basis and make a ruling, or dismiss it.
Bailey explains in his lawsuit that District Attorney Bragg, when he worked for the New York Attorney General’s Office, campaigned on the promise that he would pursue Trump if he became the new D.A, and use his experience against Trump in that pursuit. He also pointed out that Bragg hired the third-highest ranking member from the Department of Justice to lead the D.A.’s prosecution specifically for this case.
To further make his point, Bailey stated:
‘I will not sit idly by while Soros-backed prosecutors hold Missouri voters hostage in this presidential election. I am filing suit to ensure every Missourian can exercise their right to hear from and vote for their preferred presidential candidate.’
The lawsuit identified three specific violations committed by New York:
・Interference with the Presidential Election in other States: The lawsuit alleges that New York’s actions have directly interfered with the presidential election process in Missouri and other states, by constraining a candidate’s ability to campaign and engage with voters.
・Violation of Purcell: The lawsuit argues that New York’s prosecution of Trump violates the Purcell principle, a federal case that prohibits courts from sowing voter confusion or changing election rules in the months leading up to an election.
・Violation of the First Amendment Rights of Voters in other States: The lawsuit contends that New York’s restrictions on Trump’s ability to campaign unlawfully interfere with the First Amendment rights of Missouri voters to hear from and support the presidential candidate of their choice.
* * * *
I believe that Bailey has a valid case. The big question is whether SCOTUS determines that his case is worth considering, will take up the case, and vote in his favor. Lawfare has been going on far too long, in too many states, and it’s time to fight back.
Let’s hope the Supremes agree.
Published in Law
We can expect that ChiefJusticeJohnRobertsHeWillNeverLetConservativesDown will do everything in his power to block this from being heard. Alternately, if four Justices do want to hear it, he will maneuver to toss it on standing. After all that’s what they did with Texas’ suit about the PA election rules.
I’m too much the optimist, David. Lately Roberts seems to be speaking out (see Chevron) and these actions are so egregious–I continue to hope. I don’t think he can toss it on standing–his citizens are directly affected by those actions. They may not accept his including the other states, but if they accept his suit for Missouri, it will be a start.
Why would you believe that in light of Murthy? If the citizens of Missouri have no standing over government interactions with social media companies why would they have standing in a New York court decision concerning a resident of the state of Florida?
So Justices of the United States Supreme Court have loyalty to political parties?
I think you’re talking apples and oranges. I think from Coney Barrett that they didn’t want to have to do the work of reviewing thousands of incidents involving the social media companies. In this case, we’re talking about one man who is being compromised in his run for president.
To see Coney Barrett’s dissent, you can read here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/
But I’m not. The key passage in Coney Barrett’s majority opinion is this: “…a concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct…”
There is no concrete link between the alleged injuries to the people of Missouri and actions of Judge Marchan. The gag order only extends to the case in NY. It does not prevent Donald Trump from campaigning in Missouri or anywhere else. It does not prevent Missourians from attending his rallies or voting for him. It doesn’t “sow confusion” or attempt to change any rule or law in any state’s election statutes.
Andrew Bailey is competing with Ken Paxton to see which State Attorney General can get an appointment in a second Trump Administration.
So the fact that he has to censor what he says to Missourians about that trial, which was ridiculous and obscene, makes no difference? I think his speaking about the lawfare and its relation to Biden is important in his campaign, and people will want to know what happened, and how unfair it was, since the Left clearly tried to smear him and get him out of the race. He should have the right to defend himself in Missouri.
Ricochet members have strong opinions of the NY trial and they are spread out all over the United States. Is there any evidence to suggest that Judge Marchan’s gag order has prevented you – or any other person in any state – from having a view point about the trial or being confused as to Donald Trump’s view point on the trial?
Basically Bailey’s argument must come down to this: I think the citizens of my state are stupid. They can’t read, they don’t know how to access the internet or even watch TV and if Donald Trump doesn’t come to Missouri and hold their hand and tell them what a bad man Judge Marchan is they will never know or understand.
And where do you think Missourians are getting the truth about the trial? The NY Times? The Washington Post? The mainstream TV news? Not everyone is like the Ricochettis; even conservatives or independents may not realize they’ve been lied to, and there’s so much pressure to assume Trump is evil. I can have a viewpoint of the trial, and even hear DJT’s opinion, but where do I get the facts to form an opinion?
What questions do you have about the trial that have not been adequately answered? Going back to the standing question, you need to show a “a concrete link between [your] injuries and the defendants’ [aka, Judge Marchan] conduct.”
Every day the Manhattan court released a transcript of the trial. Is that not available outside the state of New York? Are the filings with the court a secret?
You’re arguing that not hearing Donald Trump’s opinion on the judge, the DA and individual jurors are harming you. Show the harm, because Bailey sure isn’t doing it.
I think we’ve covered this topic substantially. I’d just point out that in the dissent, Alito with Thomas and Gorsuch thought there was standing, in spite of Coney Barrett saying it wasn’t “concrete.”
Edit: And the transcript won’t explain the machinations that took place to manipulate the information going into the trial.
Indeed. Just looking at the transcript which is basically the end result, is like recounting fraudulent ballots over and over, as if that might reveal something new.
Can a New York City judge control speech of a person anywhere in the world?
I think the government of Australia tried something like this with Elon Musk and X but when Musk said he would not comply, they backed off.
I’m pretty sure the “gag order” is not considered to be in force only while Trump is IN New York.
And how would the judge know any violations alleged were true since almost anything can be faked today?
I guess this is the reasoning used to apply America’s Espionage Act to foreigners acting anywhere in the world.
Do you think he would care?
Why would Bailey need to depend on SCOTUS?
If SCOTUS doesn’t take the case, Bailey could try the New York judge and AG in Missouri state court.
What court in NY would he file in?
In Missouri.
I thought he’d need to file where the trial took place; then again I know nothing about filing…
I don’t see this as going anywhere. I would be very surprised if the SCOTUS took the case.
But the issue is, they’re claiming the damage is in/to (the people of) Missouri. So it’s a Missouri case.
I can understand why some people think this petition will not be successful. On the other hand, it may just work. I also think we can’t just sit on our hands and let the Left run all over us, violating law and procedure whenever they feel like it. At least this time we are putting them on notice that they’ve stepped over the line. It’s better than than giving up.
Go MO!
I doubt the United States Supreme Court will choose to take the case.
The Missouri complaint is that the State of New York (Justice Merchan) is explicitly preventing a major candidate for President of the United States from talking directly to residents of Missouri. Whether the issues or topics the candidate might talk about can come by other avenues is irrelevant to the fact that the State of New York is preventing direct communication between the residents of Missouri and a major candidate for a political office of national importance. The direct connection between the actions of the State of New York and the harm to the residents of Missouri is clear. So the standing issue is not the same as in Murthy.
The dispute is between the State of Missouri and the State of New York. The federal courts have original jurisdiction for disputes between states. I’m not clear about what types of cases can go directly to the United States Supreme Court without first going through the lower federal courts.
Since Justice Marchan did not explicitly target residents of Missouri in his order (he ordered that no one can hear from the presidential candidate), there’s probably not enough connection to give a Missouri state court jurisdiction to haul Justice Marchan and the State of New York into Missouri state court.
Yes, a New York judge can regulate what a person subject to the judge’s jurisdiction says anywhere in the world. But how is the judge’s order going to be enforced? The New York judge can enforce it (by fine or jail) the next time the person is in the judge’s courtroom. But until the person shows up in the judge’s courtroom, any efforts at enforcement depend on the New York judge getting some other jurisdiction where the person is to arrest the person and send him to the judge in New York. The other jurisdiction will do so only if the other jurisdiction considers the New York judge’s order reasonable and consistent with the law in the other jurisdiction.
Plenty of states would do that. Probably including Florida where Trump lives, despite what DeSantis might say about it. Fani Willis would no doubt agree with Merchan.
Plus if Trump just didn’t go back to New York, I expect Merchan and/or Engoron would just cancel Trump’s bond and tell Letitia James to start by seizing and selling Trump Tower.