,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This is more bonkers than I thought. Presumably realizing that the “legitimate legislative purpose” argument wasn’t going to fly here, Trump is claiming the NY law *violates his First Amendment rights* because it’s retaliation against his “speech”... assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6210…
They’re also claiming a request—which, again, hasn’t happened yet—would violate the House rules if it occurred. Do they seriously expect a federal court to “enforce” the internal rules of a chamber of Congress against its own members?
I feel like I’ve said this a lot the past couple years, but I’m gobsmacked two actual licensed attorneys signed their names to this.
The Article I argument is as weird and irrelevant as I expected. It cites a whole bunch of precedent from cases involving Congress’ inherent subpoena power under the Constitution. Which has exactly nothing to do with a NY State statute authorizing disclosure of state documents.
They might as well argue a Member can’t order pizza for staff because it’s not authorized by Article I—which would be about as relevant.
The really extraordinary thing about the <ahem> “novel” First Amendment argument offered here is that none of the many, many quotes from state legislators actually support the claim that the law is related in some way to Trump’s “speech” or “political beliefs.”
What they DO establish is that the proximate motivation for the law is Trump’s extraordinary resistance to the release of information other presidential candiates have all disclosed voluntarily for the past 50 years. Which, duh. But that’s... not the same thing. At all.
The First Amendment is a barrier to *laws punishing people for their political beliefs*. It’s not a barrier to legislation motivated by concerns about the conduct of specific political actors.
