AG Steve Marshall applauds Supreme Court ruling upholding Christian web designer’s right to deny service to a gay wedding
On Friday, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall welcomed a 6 to 3 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that protects a Denver area Christian web designer’ from having to build a website for a gay couple’s same-sex wedding in violation of her Christian principles and beliefs. 303 Creative and its owner, Lorie Smith, is a graphic artist and website designer in Colorado. Smith expanded her business into wedding website design. Smith’s deeply held Christian beliefs prohibit her from promoting same-sex weddings. Colorado’s anti-discrimination law forbids businesses from denying service to LGBTQ+ persons seeking service. Under that law, if Smith designed and promoted custom websites for opposite-sex weddings, she would have to design and promote custom websites for same-sex weddings too. Smith filed a suit claiming that the law violated her First Amendment rights to practice her religion and her free speech rights and that the Colorado law as such is a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights. The lower court ruled against her. Undeterred, Smith appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which also ruled against Smith, and then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s opinion in 303 Creative v. Elenis reaffirms that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing citizens, including business owners, from speaking messages with which they disagree. In the 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision against Smith. “The Constitution and our First Amendment prevail,” Marshall said in a statement. “All Americans enjoy the right to freedom of conscience, and that freedom means the government cannot coerce anyone to speak against their deeply held beliefs,” said Attorney General Marshall. “Today’s decision confirms that state and local government are not ‘immune to the demands of the Constitution.’” In June 2022, Attorney General Marshall signed on to a 20-state amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to protect the First Amendment rights of business owners. The brief argued in support of Smith. Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit legal advocacy group that defends religious liberty, also filed an amicus brief in favor of the web designer’s right to deny service. Liberty Counsel said in a statement that the Colorado state law censors and coerces the speech of creative professionals whose religious beliefs do not conform to state-accepted beliefs. Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This is a great victory for the right of individual speech and expression. The state cannot force people to convey a government-approved message against their religious beliefs or individual choice. Film, theater, art, and other creative expression would not exist if the government could censor the message.” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The three liberal Justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Kentanji Brown Jackson, dissented. “The First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well-intentioned or deeply ‘misguided,’ and likely to cause ‘anguish’ or ‘incalculable grief.’ Equally, the First Amendment protects acts of expressive association,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “Generally, too, the government may not compel a person to speak its own preferred messages. Nor does it matter whether the government seeks to compel a person to speak its message when he would prefer to remain silent or to force an individual to include other ideas with his own speech that he would prefer not to include. All that offends the First Amendment just the same.” “Applying these principles to this case, we align ourselves with much of the Tenth Circuit’s analysis,” Gorsuch continued. “The Tenth Circuit held that the wedding websites Ms. Smith seeks to create qualify as ‘pure speech’ under this Court’s precedents. We agree. It is a conclusion that flows directly from the parties’ stipulations. They have stipulated that Ms. Smith’s websites promise to contain ‘images, words, symbols, and other modes of expression.’ They have stipulated that every website will be her ‘original, customized’ creation. And they have stipulated that Ms. Smith will create these websites to communicate ideas—namely, to ‘celebrate and promote the couple’s wedding and unique love story’ and to ‘celebrate and promote’ what Ms. Smith understands to be a true marriage. We part ways with the Tenth Circuit only when it comes to the legal conclusions that follow. While that court thought Colorado could compel speech from Ms. Smith consistent with the Constitution, our First Amendment precedents laid out above teach otherwise.” “Nor is it any answer, as the Tenth Circuit seemed to suppose, that Ms. Smith’s services are ‘unique,’” Gorsuch continued. “In some sense, of course, her voice is unique; so is everyone’s. But that hardly means a State may coopt an individual’s voice for its own purposes.” “The First Amendment extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct, including those who seek profit (such as speechwriters, artists, and website designers),” Gorsuch wrote. If anything is truly dispiriting here, it is the dissent’s failure to take seriously this Court’s enduring commitment to protecting the speech rights of all comers, no matter how controversial—or even repugnant—many may find the message at hand.” Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissent. “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” Sotomayor wrote. “New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.” The last day of Pride Month perhaps ironically ends with a Supreme Court ruling affirming that LGBTQ+ rights do not mean that the state can deprive other citizens of their free speech and religious liberty rights. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) released a statement denouncing the decision. “This decision by the Supreme Court is a dangerous step backward, giving some businesses the power to
Minority Leader Anthony Daniels says Supreme Court decision threaten to roll back decades of progress
State Representative Anthony Daniels (D-Huntsville), Minority Leader of the Alabama House of Representatives, released a statement on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Daniels said he was concerned that the decision threatened to overturn decades of progress in the country. “We are an increasingly diverse country that is still grappling with a legacy of racism and the resultant and ongoing disparities based upon race,” said Leader Daniels. “Rather than encourage solutions to address those disparities, the Court today deepened them. It also widened existing and growing political divisions.” “Today’s Supreme Court ruling pretends these racial disparities don’t exist, despite overwhelming evidence that shows they impact test scores, student achievement, and access to educational and economic opportunity for so many individuals and families,” Daniels continued. “The irony is that at least two members of the majority are the direct beneficiaries of affirmative action and related policies.” Daniels continued. “Justice [Amy] Coney Barrett attended a law school with gender balance, and Justice [Clarence] Thomas benefitted from Yale’s affirmative action program. The fact that they benefited from these or related policies to put them on the path to career success (and the highest court in the land) but now want to erect a roadblock for others is not only disappointing, but it’s also downright wrong.” Daniels continued, “We desperately wish they could connect their individual stories of advancement to the promises that our Constitution is supposed to uphold for all. Simply put: your success story is not only a matter of where you came from. It’s also a matter of how you got there. This decision is deeply disappointing and terribly cynical. It threatens to roll back decades of progress in our educational institutions and our society. Sadly, it also reveals what some of us have long known – many qualified and privileged Americans either can’t or won’t recognize the opportunities afforded to them along the way.” “Furthermore, the majority opinion actually reveals that arguments for Affirmative Action must have some merit as it exempts military academies from the ban that it’s unilaterally applying to the rest of America,” said Daniels. “In the words of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, “The Court has come to rest on the bottom-line conclusion that racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom (a particularly awkward place to land, in light of the history the majority opts to ignore).” “Race is a fact of life in America,” concluded Daniels. “Again, as Justice Brown Jackson wrote, “Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” This decision means that educational institutions will now have to work harder to reflect the diversity of our country and the unifying values of equality and fairness that can never be taken for granted. And it’s up to us to help them do it.” Harvard Dean David N. Hempton responded to the news the Supreme Court had found against their admissions policy. Hempton wrote, “Today, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Court held that Harvard College’s admissions system does not comply with the principles of the equal protection clause embodied in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Court also ruled that colleges and universities may consider in admissions decisions “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” We will certainly comply with the Court’s decision.” “Harvard must always be a place of opportunity, a place whose doors remain open to those to whom they had long been closed, a place where many will have the chance to live dreams their parents or grandparents could not have dreamed,” Hempton said. “For almost a decade, Harvard has vigorously defended an admissions system that, as two federal courts ruled, fully complied with longstanding precedent. In the weeks and months ahead, drawing on the talent and expertise of our Harvard community, we will determine how to preserve, consistent with the Court’s new precedent, our essential values.” “Harvard must always be a place of opportunity, a place whose doors remain open to those to whom they had long been closed, a place where many will have the chance to live dreams their parents or grandparents could not have dreamed,” Hempton stated. “For almost a decade, Harvard has vigorously defended an admissions system that, as two federal courts ruled, fully complied with longstanding precedent. In the weeks and months ahead, drawing on the talent and expertise of our Harvard community, we will determine how to preserve, consistent with the Court’s new precedent, our essential values.” Colleges and universities across this country will have to review their admissions policies to ensure that they comply with this ruling and are not discriminating on the basis of race. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Democratic leadership address the Supreme Court rejection of Alabama’s congressional redistricting
On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Alabama must redraw the state’s congressional map to allow an additional Black majority district to account for the fact that the state is 27% Black. The Alabama House Democratic Caucus and the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus both applauded the ruling. Alabama House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels (D-Huntsville) said, “During a severely short and limited map-drawing process, our Caucus spoke at length about our view of the law and provided ways the state could craft at least two districts that reflect fair political opportunities for African American voters.” “We are therefore pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the unanimous district court, which found the Alabama maps were discriminatory,” Daniels continued. “We stand ready to participate meaningfully with our colleagues to create a new map that fully complies with the law.” Rep. Terri Sewell wrote on Twitter, “Wow!!! The Supreme Court just upheld Section 2 of Voting Rights Act of 1965 and protected the voices of Black and minority voters. This is a historic victory not only for Black voters in Alabama, but for Democracy itself.” In a press release, Sewell said, “This is a historic victory, not only for Black voters in Alabama, but for Democracy itself. With this decision, the Supreme Court is saying loudly and clearly that the voices of minority voters matter and that fair representation must be upheld. I know that John Lewis and the Foot Soldiers of the Voting Rights Movement are smiling as they look down on us. Today, their sacrifice was rewarded. Our work is not over. We must continue the fight for fair representation by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” State Senator Merika Coleman (D-Birmingham) is the Chair of the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus. “From the beginning of this case, we have strongly denounced racial gerrymandering and will continue our efforts to ensure that districts are drawn equitably and fairly,” said Sen. Coleman. “I applaud Chief Justice (John) Roberts for preserving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This is a major victory for Black voters in Alabama, as well as the entire nation.” State Representative Napoleon Bracy, Jr. (D-Prichard) is the Vice Chair of the Alabama Black Legislative Caucus. “In a resounding victory for fair representation, the Supreme Court’s unexpected decision stands as a powerful testament to the importance of upholding the Voting Rights Act,” Rep. Bracy said. “By prohibiting racial gerrymandering in Alabama, the Court reaffirms the principle that every citizen’s voice deserves to be heard, regardless of their race. This ruling sends a clear message that political power should not be diluted through discriminatory practices, ensuring that the spirit of democracy remains strong and inclusive in Alabama.” In 2021, the Alabama state legislature produced new congressional maps which closely paralleled the previous 2012 redistricting with just one Black majority district. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the majority of the Court sided with the plaintiffs and affirmed that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires the Alabama legislature to draw a second district where minority voters can elect a candidate of their choice. The decision will also have an impact across the South, as today’s decision clears the way for additional minority districts to be drawn in other states with challenged maps, like Georgia and Louisiana. “It is hard to imagine many more fundamental ‘prerequisites’ to voting than determining where to cast your ballot or who you are eligible to vote for,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. The 34-page decision in Milligan penned by Roberts recommits to the Voting Rights Act’s promise as the foundation for justice for all, not just some. Roberts was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Kentaji Brown Jackson, and Brett Kavanaugh. Jeff Loperfido is the Interim Chief Counsel for Voting Rights at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “This is a great day for democracy and for the voting rights of Black and Brown communities throughout the South who continue to be the targets of discriminatory laws that seek to silence their voices and stifle their growing political power,” said Loperfido. “The Court’s forceful repudiation of Alabama’s extreme and disingenuous ‘race-blind’ mapping theory is a testament to the important role the Voting Rights Act plays in rooting out discriminatory electoral practices.” The Legal Defense Fund (LDF), American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb brought the case in November 2021 on behalf of Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP. It was argued before the Court on Oct. 4, 2022. The case goes back to the three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that originally ruled against the State of Alabama. The Supreme Court had stayed its ruling last year at the request of Alabama Governor Kay Ivey, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, and then-Secretary of State John Merrill. The three-judge panel will decide whether to order the Legislature to redraw the districts following the orders of the Court or order the state to adopt a zoning map drawn by the courts. Two alternative maps were presented to the Court by the plaintiffs. The easiest thing would be for the three judges to order the state to accept one of those maps. Whatever happens, Alabama’s Congressional maps will look substantially different than they are today by the end of the year. This will likely impact hundreds of thousands of Alabama voters. The major party primaries for the congressional districts will be on March 6. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Supreme Court rules in favor of Black Alabama voters in unexpected defense of Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising 5-4 ruling in favor of Black voters in a congressional redistricting case from Alabama, with two conservative justices joining liberals in rejecting a Republican-led effort to weaken a landmark voting rights law. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven congressional districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black. The state now will have to draw a new map for next year’s elections. The decision was closely watched for its potential effect on control of the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives. Because of the ruling, Republican-led legislatures in Alabama and Louisiana will have to redraw maps so that they could increase Black representation. The outcome was unexpected in that the court had allowed the challenged Alabama map to be used for the 2022 elections — and in arguments last October, the justices appeared willing to make it harder to challenge redistricting plans as racially discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The chief justice himself suggested last year that he was open to changes in the way courts weigh discrimination claims under the part of the law known as section 2. But on Thursday, Roberts wrote that the court was declining “to recast our section 2 case law as Alabama requests.” Roberts was part of conservative high-court majorities in earlier cases that made it harder for racial minorities to use the Voting Rights Act in ideologically divided rulings in 2013 and 2021. The other four conservative justices dissented Thursday. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the decision forces “Alabama to intentionally redraw its longstanding congressional districts so that black voters can control a number of seats roughly proportional to the black share of the State’s population. Section 2 demands no such thing, and, if it did, the Constitution would not permit it.” The Biden administration sided with the Black voters in Alabama. Attorney General Merrick Garland applauded the ruling: “Today’s decision rejects efforts to further erode fundamental voting rights protections, and preserves the principle that in the United States, all eligible voters must be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote free from discrimination based on their race.” Evan Milligan, a Black voter and the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling was a victory for democracy and people of color. “We are grateful that the Supreme Court upheld what we knew to be true: that everyone deserves to have their vote matter and their voice heard. Today is a win for democracy and freedom not just in Alabama but across the United States,” Milligan said. The case stems from challenges to Alabama’s seven-district congressional map, which included one district in which Black voters form a large enough majority that they have the power to elect their preferred candidate. The challengers said that one district is not enough, pointing out that overall, Alabama’s population is more than 25% Black. A three-judge court, with two appointees of former President Donald Trump, had little trouble concluding that the plan likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the votes of Black Alabamians. The panel ordered a new map drawn. But the state quickly appealed to the Supreme Court, where five conservative justices prevented the lower-court ruling from going forward. At the same time, the court decided to hear the Alabama case. Louisiana’s congressional map had separately been identified as probably discriminatory by a lower court. That map, too, remained in effect last year and now will have to be redrawn. Partisan politics underlies the case, and in a closely divided House of Representatives, Thursday’s ruling could have a significant effect. Republicans who dominate elective office in Alabama have been resistant to creating a second district with a Democratic-leaning Black majority, or close to one, that could send another Democrat to Congress. The judges found that Alabama concentrated Black voters in one district, while spreading them out among the others to make it much more difficult to elect more than one candidate of their choice. Alabama’s Black population is large enough and geographically compact enough to create a second district, the judges found. Denying discrimination, Alabama argued that the lower court ruling would have forced it to sort voters by race and insisted it was taking a “race-neutral” approach to redistricting. At arguments in October, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson scoffed at the idea that race could not be part of the equation. Jackson, the court’s first Black woman, said that constitutional amendments passed after the Civil War and the Voting Rights Act a century later were intended to do the same thing, make Black Americans “equal to white citizens.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Offices including secretary of state contested in Alabama
The campaigns for U.S. Senate and governor have gotten the most attention leading up to Tuesday’s primary in Alabama, but five other statewide races are on the ballot. With multiple candidates in some races, some nominations may not be decided until after runoff elections scheduled for June 21. Here are some of the key races to watch: SECRETARY OF STATE Four Republicans and one Democrat are on the primary ballot to succeed GOP incumbent John Merrill as Alabama’s top elections officer, secretary of state. Ed Packard, who worked in the secretary of state’s elections division for nearly 25 years, is seeking the Republican nomination in a field that includes Jim Zeigler, who was barred from running again as state auditor by term limits; state Rep. Wes Allen of Troy, who served nearly a decade as probate judge in Pike County; and Christian Horn, a GOP activist and business owner from Madison County. None of the four candidates has raised major complaints about election problems in Alabama, which is controlled by Republicans and voted heavily for President Donald Trump in 2020. But all have talked about measures needed to tighten election security, an issue popularized among conservatives by Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen by President Joe Biden. Merrill couldn’t seek the office again after serving two terms. The eventual Republican nominee will face Democrat Pamela J. Laffitte of Mobile in November. ATTORNEY GENERAL Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall faces a single primary challenger as he seeks a second four-year term as the state’s main law enforcement official. First appointed to the position in 2017, Marshall is opposed by Harry Bartlett Still III, an attorney from Daphne. Marshall, who previously served as district attorney in Marshall County, regularly opposes initiatives launched by Democratic President Joe Biden, including vaccination requirements for COVID-19 and federal policies along the border with Mexico, and he testified against the nomination of now-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court. Still contends corruption is rampant in state government, and that the agency that oversees police standards and training in the state needs to be reorganized to increase public trust in law enforcement. He also supports replacing Alabama’s heavily amended Constitution, passed in 1901 to ensure white supremacy. The winner will face Democratic nominee Wendell Major, police chief in the Birmingham-area city of Tarrant, in November. STATE AUDITOR Candidates for Alabama state auditor typically emphasize the importance of keeping track of state property, but three Republicans seeking the office this year added another talking point in the era of false claims about a stolen presidential vote — election security. Stan Cooke, a pastor from Kimberly; Rusty Glover, a former history teacher from Semmes who served in the state Senate; and state Rep. Andrew Sorrell of Muscle Shoals all are emphasizing the auditor’s role of selecting county registrar boards as they seek the office. Almost directly echoing false claims by former President Donald Trump, Cooke’s campaign website says the state must get ahead of Democrats before they “try and steal our elections as they did in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and even our neighbor to the east, Georgia.” The incumbent, Jim Zeigler, couldn’t seek re-election after serving two terms and is running for secretary of state. Winning the Republican nomination is tantamount to election since no Democrat qualified to run for auditor. SUPREME COURT One Republican candidate for the Alabama Supreme Court is trying to woo voters with a mix that includes his devotion to God and former President Donald Trump. The other is emphasizing her experience in the courtroom — and her gun. Greg Cook, an attorney from metro Birmingham, and Debra Jones, a circuit judge who hears cases in Calhoun and Cleburne, are seeking the Republican nomination for the Place 5 Supreme Court seat held by Justice Mike Bolin, who is retiring. Cook is portraying himself as a “Trump-tough” Republican who was a Trump delegate and represented conservative interests in the 2000 presidential recount contest in Florida between Al Gore and President George W. Bush. Aside from partisan and legal qualifications, Cook’s campaign resume features his longtime church membership and leadership. Jones released a commercial late in the campaign boasting of her support for Trump, her short stature — “She’s 5 feet of concrete” — and a case in which she sentenced a person convicted of child molestation to more than 1,000 years in prison. The spot shows her firing a handgun and saying the only reason she didn’t put the person “under the jail” was that “the liberals” wouldn’t let her. All nine members of the court are Republicans, and the winner of the Place 5 race will be a heavy favorite over Democrat Anita L. Kelly, a judge in Montgomery, in the general election. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Voters will decide whether to let the state go into debt for $85 million in bonds to spruce up Alabama’s state parks and historical sites. A statewide constitutional amendment on the ballot would provide $80 million in funding for state park projects that include adding and improving camping sites, adding wireless service, upgrading electrical and water service, replacing playgrounds, constructing swimming pools, and repairing parts of Gulf State Park damaged by Hurricane Sally. The remaining $5 million would go to the Alabama Historical Commission for acquiring, renovating, and maintaining historical parks around the state. The agency wouldn’t be allowed to use the money at Confederate Memorial Park in Marbury. The park is funded by a tax that was originally intended for needy Confederate veterans. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Court rejects Donald Trump’s efforts to keep records from January 6 panel
A federal appeals court ruled Thursday against an effort by former President Donald Trump to shield documents from the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. In a 68-page ruling, the three-judge panel tossed aside Trump’s various arguments for blocking through executive privilege records that the committee regards as vital to its investigation into the run-up to the deadly riot that was aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election. Judge Patricia Millett, writing for the court, said Congress had a “uniquely vital interest” in studying the events of January 6, and that President Joe Biden had made a “carefully reasoned” determination that the documents were in the public interest and that executive privilege should therefore not be invoked. Trump also failed to show any harm that would occur from the release of the sought-after records, Millett wrote. “On the record before us, former President Trump has provided no basis for this court to override President Biden’s judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the Political Branches over these documents,” the opinion states. It adds, “Both Branches agree that there is a unique legislative need for these documents and that they are directly relevant to the Committee’s inquiry into an attack on the Legislative Branch and its constitutional role in the peaceful transfer of power. The appeals court ruled that the injunction that has prevented the National Archives from turning over the documents will expire in two weeks, or when the Supreme Court rules on an expected appeal from Trump, whichever is later. Lawyers for Trump can also ask the entire appeals court to review the case. Seven of the 11 appellate judges on the court were appointed by Democratic presidents, four by Republican presidents. The panel’s leaders, Reps. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Liz Cheney, R.-Wyo., hailed the ruling, saying it “respects the Select Committee’s interest in obtaining White House records and the President’s judgment in allowing those records to be produced. Our work moves ahead swiftly. We will get to the truth.” But Trump’s spokeswoman said the matter was far from settled. “Regardless of today’s decision by the appeals court, this case was always destined for the Supreme Court,” Liz Harrington said. “President Trump’s duty to defend the Constitution and the Office of the Presidency continues, and he will keep fighting for every American and every future Administration.” In its ruling, the court said the executive privilege being asserted by Trump is not a personal privilege but instead one that he “stewards” for the “benefit of the Republic.” “The interests the privilege protects are those of the Presidency itself, not former President Trump individually. And the President has determined that immediate disclosure will promote, not injure, the national interest, and that delay here is itself injurious,” the opinion states. Biden had the committee defer its requests for some of the early documents that might have posed privilege claims, and officials expect more documents in subsequent tranches will be subject to the same outcome. The court praised Biden’s “calibrated judgment” in working with Congress and the Archives to weigh privilege concerns, saying it “bears no resemblance to the ‘broad and limitless waiver’ of executive privilege former President Trump decries.” White House spokesman Mike Gwin said, “As President Biden determined, the constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself.” Trump sued the House January 6 committee and the National Archives to stop the White House from allowing the release of documents related to the insurrection. Biden had waived Trump’s executive privilege claims as the current officeholder. At issue, the court said, is not that Trump “has no say in the matter” but rather his failure to show that withholding the documents should supersede Biden’s “considered and weighty judgment” that Congress is entitled to the records. The National Archives has said that the records Trump wants to block include presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts, handwritten notes “concerning the events of January 6” from the files of former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and “a draft Executive Order on the topic of election integrity.” Arguing for the committee, U.S. House lawyer Douglas Letter argued that the determination of a current president should outweigh predecessors in almost all circumstances and noted that both Biden and Congress were in agreement that the January 6 records should be turned over. All three of the appeals court judges who heard the arguments were nominated by Democrats. Millett and Judge Robert Wilkins were nominated by former President Barack Obama. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is a Biden appointee seen as a contender for a Supreme Court seat should one open during the current administration. Republican presidents nominated six of the nine Supreme Court justices, including three chosen by Trump. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Court temporarily delays release of Donald Trump’s January 6 records
A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily blocked the release of White House records sought by a U.S. House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, granting — for now — a request from former President Donald Trump. The administrative injunction issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit effectively bars until the end of this month the release of records that were to be turned over Friday. The appeals court set oral arguments in the case for Nov. 30. The stay gives the court time to consider arguments in a momentous clash between the former president, whose supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, and President Joe Biden and Congress, who have pushed for a thorough investigation of the riot. It delays the House committee from reviewing records that lawmakers say could shed light on the events leading up to the insurrection and Trump’s efforts to delegitimize an election he lost. The National Archives, which holds the documents, says they include call logs, handwritten notes, and a draft executive order on “election integrity.” Biden waived executive privilege on the documents. Trump then went to court, arguing that as a former president, he still had the right to exert privilege over the records, and releasing them would damage the presidency in the future. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Tuesday rejected those arguments, noting in part, “Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.” She again denied an emergency motion by Trump on Wednesday. In their emergency filing to the appeals court, Trump’s lawyers wrote that without a stay, Trump would “suffer irreparable harm through the effective denial of a constitutional and statutory right to be fully heard on a serious disagreement between the former and incumbent President.” The Nov. 30 arguments will take place before three judges nominated by Democratic presidents: Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins, nominated by former President Barack Obama, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of Biden. Given the case’s magnitude, whichever side loses before the circuit court is likely to eventually appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The White House on Thursday also notified a lawyer for Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, that Biden would waive any executive privilege that would prevent Meadows from cooperating with the committee, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press. The committee has subpoenaed Meadows and more than two dozen other people as part of its investigation. His lawyer, George Terwilliger, issued a statement in response saying Meadows “remains under the instructions of former President Trump to respect longstanding principles of executive privilege.” “It now appears the courts will have to resolve this conflict,” Terwilliger said. The committee late Thursday threatened to begin contempt proceedings against Meadows if he doesn’t change course and comply. “Simply put, there is no valid legal basis for Mr. Meadows’s continued resistance to the Select Committee’s subpoena,” the committee wrote to Terwilliger, saying it would view Meadows’ failure to turn over documents or appear at a scheduled deposition on Friday as “willful non-compliance.” The House has already referred former Trump adviser Steve Bannon to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
