Mediaboss Marketing

A "one-of-a-kind case." Judge Amit Mehta's description of the litigation against four principal speakers at the Jan. 6 Trump rally may have been as much a prayer as a portrayal. As famed Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "Hard cases make bad law and the litigation against President TrumpDonald TrumpJudge strikes down part of Biden surprise billing rules in win for doctors Overnight Defense & National Security More Westernpressure as Russia moves in Jan. 6 defendant who said 'this is war' on social media sentenced to 45 days in jail MORE and his associates is a hard case that just proved Holmes right.

In consolidated cases brought by Democratic members of Congress and Capitol Police officers, Judge Mehta ruled on motions to dismiss by the former president, his son Donald Jr., former Trump counsel Rudy GiulianiRudy GiulianiJudge in Trump conspiracy case links Jan. 6 to history of racist violence 'What-aboutism' Ruling against Trump leaves more questions than answers on free speech Judge rules Trump must face civil suits over Jan. 6 MORE and Rep. Mo BrooksMorris (Mo) Jackson BrooksAll eyes on Trump as Timken gains momentum in Ohio 'What-aboutism' Ruling against Trump leaves more questions than answers on free speech Britt in new ad tells 'boys in Washington' to 'man up' MORE (R-Ala.), as well as several extremist groups like the Oath Keepers. The judge dismissed the claims of a violent conspiracy against Trump Jr. and Giuliani, and he invited Brooks to file a motion to dismiss on the same grounds. He rejected arguments that their speeches at the rallycaused the subsequent rioting in the Capitol. Yet, while admitting that the case raised difficult constitutional questions, he declined to dismiss the claim against Trump.

The ruling will now allow a long-awaited appeal on core constitutional questions, including the protections for inflammatory speech.

Most analysts expected that groups like the Oath Keepers would likely remain in the lawsuit, given their active role in the rioting and therecent chargesof seditious conspiracy filed against them. The most controversial parties were the speakers at the rally near the White House before the riot.

The judge's112-page opinionmakes easy work of dismissing the claims against the other speakers. These speeches were reckless but constitutionally protected. Giuliani's declaration Let's have trial by combat" has been cited by some critics as a clear incitement to an insurrection, but the judge found such arguments were implausible and that Giuliani's words "were not likely" to cause a riot. He also found that Trump Jr.'s comments on the election were "protected speech, and he rejected claims that Brooks urging Trumps supporters to "start taking names and kicking ass" could be the basis for liability.

Ipreviously wrotethat the claims against these four Jan. 6 speakers might find "a sympathetic trial judge" but that "they will likely fail on appeal, even if they survive the trial level litigation." All but one of those claims are now dismissed on the trial level. Moreover, Judge Mehta's opinion seems to reinforce the view that Trump's speech was protected, too.

The judge could well be reversed on the threshold question of immunity, raised by Trump, that presidents cannot be sued for speaking on matters of public interest. Mehta was honest in saying that "this is not an easy issue" and that "the alleged facts of this case are without precedent." Yet, he offered a detailed explanation of why he believes such immunity should not extend to a speech contesting election results the strongest portion of his decision. In so holding, Mehta is making new law and some jurists on appeal, particularly on the Supreme Court, are likely to be concerned over the implications of such liability for a sitting president.

However, it is thefree speech issuethat is most concerning. My concern is not based on any agreement with Trump's view of the election or Congresss certification of it; Icriticized his speechas he gave it and later called forCongress to censure him; nevertheless, his remarks fall well short of the high standard set for criminal or civil liability for speech.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected such liability despite the use of inflammatory or even violent words.

In1969, inBrandenburgv. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that even a Ku Klux Klan leader calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of imminent lawless actionandis likely to incite or produce such action. InHess v. Indiana, the court rejected the prosecution of a protester declaring an intention to take over the streets because at worst, (the words) amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time. In a third case,NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the court overturned a judgment against the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People after one of its officials promised to break the necks of opponents.

Although Trump pumped up his Jan. 6 supporters with allegations of election fraud and calls to "fight like hell," Judge Mehta acknowledged that Trump also told the crowd that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. His comments were consistent with a protest in saying that we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.

In fairness to the court, it is merely saying that the cases plaintiffs could possibly prove a conspiracy between Trump and some Jan. 6 groups. But he cites little support for such a conspiracy beyond facts like Trumps earliercontroversial statement in a debatethat the Proud Boys should stand back and stand by.Thecourt's careful, meticulous analysis on the earlier claims seems to break down over Trumps status; it struggles to ignore the clear weight of prior case law and countervailing interpretations of Trumps words.

Despite a lengthy, detailed discussion of issues like presidential immunity, Mehta becomes more curt and cursory over Trump's constitutional claims. When Trump's lawyers said his language was largely indistinguishable from that of many Democrats like Rep. Maxine WatersMaxine Moore Waters'What-aboutism' Ruling against Trump leaves more questions than answers on free speech On The Money House panel mulls future of 'stablecoin' rules Lawmakers clash over how to regulate 'stablecoins' MORE (D-Calif.), Mehta chided them for playing "a game of what-aboutism."

That "what-aboutism," however, is precisely the point. The selective imposition of liability for speech is the very thing that the First Amendment is designed to prevent.

Asrioting raged in Brooklyn Center, Minn. and nationwide in 2020, Congresswoman Waters went to Minnesota and told protesters there that they gotta stay on the street and get more confrontational.Others have used language very similar to Trumps in declaring elections to be invalid (includingHillary Clinton calling Trump an "illegitimate president") or urging supporters to "fight" or "battle" against Republicans; Rep. Ayanna PressleyAyanna PressleyTlaib to deliver progressive response to Biden State of the Union address 'What-aboutism' Ruling against Trump leaves more questions than answers on free speech Green groups press for progressive upset in Texas House race MORE (D-Mass.) once said, "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives.

All of those statements arguably were reckless but clearly protected speech.

Free speech demands bright lines. While this is a "one-of-a-kind case," Trump's comments were hardly unique. And Judge Mehta does not clearly establish why Giulianis "trial by combat" remark or Brooks taking names and kicking ass" exhortation are not calls for imminent violence or lawlessness but Trumps fight like hell would be.

With three of the four speakers now dismissed from the case, only Trump remains. Along with him remains the most looming question: whether the Jan. 6 speech, which was central to his impeachment, was protected under the Constitution. If Trump prevails on appeal, he may claim a degree of vindication thanks to some of his fiercest opponents.

What the court dismisses as "a game of what-aboutism" is all about free speech.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

Read the original here:
'What-aboutism' Ruling against Trump leaves more questions than answers on free speech | TheHill - The Hill