Trump v United States - Per Justice Thomas Only Congress, Not the Biden Administration, May Appoint a Federal "Office" such as that of "Special Counsel" Jack Smith

This week, I originally intended to write about appellate advocacy in light of the Presidential debate.  However, given what occurred, I have postponed these comments because I think the “gas-lighting” regarding the pre-debate condition of our President is a more pressing issue.  Arguably, however, the opinion in Trump v. United States (July 1, 2024) No. 23-939, is an even more important issue, so I will first address at least one aspect of this ruling first, including and especially the concurring opinion by the oldest and longest-serving member of the present court, Justice Clarence Thomas. 

As a life-long civil libertarion I was stunned, quite frankly, when Attorney General Garland created the “office” of the “special counsel” in order to appoint Jack Smith to engage in what many call “lawfare” against President Trump.  This is because only Congress may create a Federal office.  I was not the only one to take notice, for Justice Thomas’  concurrence to the majority opinion sets forth the manner in which “private citizen” Jack Smith was appointed.  

In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President. 

No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to pro ceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding. (Trump v. United States, pp. 1-2)

Therefore, as Justice Thomas explains at page two, such a prosecution may only be done by someone duly authorized to do so by "the American people.”  He therefore quotes from Article II, Section II, Clause II, of the United States Constitution:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department. (Emphasis added.)

Justice Thomas cites to the Federalist Papers, which discuss, with great logic and eloquence, the requirement a President may only appoint someone to an office created by Congress, and not by Executive Branch fiat, grew out of the virtually unlimited power of the British Monarch to create titles and offices.  The drafters of the Constitution therefore sought to give the President inferior powers, as evidenced by one of the specific grievances listed in paragraph 12 of the Declaration of Independence:

Before the President or a Department Head can appoint any officer, however, the Constitution requires that the underlying office be “established by Law.”1 The Constitution itself creates some offices, most obviously that of the President and Vice President. See §1. Although the Constitution contemplates that there will be “other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise pro-vided for,” it clearly requires that those offices “shall be established by Law.” §2, cl. 2. And, “established by law” reers to an office that Congress creates “by statute.” Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 254 (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also United States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1213 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823) (Marshall, C. J.). 

The limitation on the President’s power to create offices grew out of the Founders’ experience with the English monarchy. The King could wield significant power by both creating and filling offices as he saw fit. He was “emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only ap- point[ed] to all offices, but [could] create offices.” The Federalist No. 69, p. 421 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961); see also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 271 (T. Cooley ed. 1871) (“[A]s the king may create new titles, so may he create new offices”). That ability to create offices raised many “concerns about the King’s ability to amass too much power”; the King could both create a multitude of of-fices and then fill them with his supporters. J. Mascott, Who Are “Officers of the United States”? 70 Stan. L. Rev. 443, 492 (2018) (Mascott); see also G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787, p. 143 (1969) (describing “the power of appointment to offices” as “the most insid-ous and powerful weapon of eighteenth-century despotism”); T. Paine, Common Sense (1776), reprinted in The Great Works of Thomas Paine 11 (1877) (explaining that “the crown . . . derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions”). In fact, one of the grievances raised by the American colonists in declaring their independence was that the King “ha[d] erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” Declaration of Independence ¶12. The Founders thus drafted the Constitution with “evidently a great inferiority in the power of the President, in this particular, to that of the British king.” The Federalist No. 69, at 421. (Id., pp. 3-4; emphasis added.)

Justice Thomas aptly notes the obvious, namely that when Mr. Smith was appointed to the “office” created by Mr. Garland, there was no citation to any statute and the Justice Department has not cited to any statute that actually creates such an office.  The concurring opinion therefore quotes James Madison, who warned us:

 “If there is any point in which the separation of the Legislative and Executive powers ought to be maintained with greater caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.” 1 Annals of Cong. 581. (Trump v. United States, p. 6.)

The man appointed by executive branch fiat

Finally, as to the very man appointed to the office of “special counsel” in an apparently “extra-Constitutional” manner,  a more principled man might have refused this appointment.  Indeed,  based on the insidious motivation underlying the supposed establishment of a special counsel’s “office” by Mr. Garland, it would have been quite easy for Mr. Smith to have refused this appointment on the grounds it is improperly-created under the provisions of Article II, Section II.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

NRA v. Vullo - Unanimous Supreme Court rules government may not engage in "lawfare" against free speech, limiting the expression of opinions by a political organization by deliberating interfering with its relations with other companies or organization

The United States Supreme Court has recently issued one of the most important First Amendment cases in the last decade. (See National Rifle Association v. Vullo (May 30, 2024) no. 22-842).  In this unanimous decision, issued a mere 73 days after it was argued, the United States Supreme Court affirmed a state government may not seek to block the expression of opinions by a political organization by deliberating interfering with its relations with other companies or organizations.  Your author terms this sort of conduct "lawfare" and it is readily-apparent the current regime in the State of New York will do almost anything to silence its political opponents.

When one imagines the legitimate role of a sovereign state, one does not imagine attempting to silence political views the Governor and Attorney General find repugnant, which political views cannot be banned outright due to those pesky restrictions found in the Bill of Rights.  Nonetheless, as Justice Sotomayer cogently explained at pages three to five, the NRA alleged the State of New York did exactly that:

Around that time, [the former superintendent of the New York Department of Finan- cial Services, or NFS] Vullo also began to meet with executives at the insurance companies doing business with the NRA. On February 27, Vullo met with senior executives at Lloyd’s. There, speaking on behalf of DFS and then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, Vullo “presented [their] views on gun control and their desire to leverage their powers to combat the availability of firearms, including specifically by weakening the NRA.” Id., at 221, ¶67. She also “discussed an array of technical regulatory infractions plaguing the affinity-insurance marketplace” in New York. Id., at 199, ¶21. Vullo told the Lloyd’s executives “that DFS was less interested in pursuing the[se] infractions” unrelated to any NRA business “so long as Lloyd’s ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA.” Id., at 199–200, ¶21; accord, id., at 223, ¶69 (alleging that Vullo made it clear to Lloyd’s that it “could avoid liability for infractions relating to other, similarly situated insurance policies, so long as it aided DFS’s campaign against gun groups”).1 Vullo and Lloyd’s struck a deal: Lloyd’s “would instruct its syndicates to cease underwriting firearm-related policies and would scale back its NRA-related business,” and “in exchange, DFS would focus its forthcoming affinity-insurance enforcement action solely on those syndicates which served the NRA, and ignore other syndicates writing similar policies.” Ibid., ¶69.

On April 19, 2018, Vullo issued two virtually identical guidance letters on DFS letterhead entitled, “Guidance on Risk Management Relating to the NRA and Similar Gun Promotion Organizations.” Id., at 246–251 (Guidance Letters). Vullo sent one of the letters to insurance companies and the other to financial services institutions. In the letters, Vullo pointed to the “social backlash” against the NRA and other groups “that promote guns that lead to senseless violence” following “several recent horrific shootings, including in Parkland, Florida.” Id., at 246, 249. Vullo then cited recent instances of businesses severing their ties with the NRA as examples of companies “fulfilling their corporate social responsibility.” Id., at 247, 250. 

In the Guidance Letters’ final paragraph, Vullo “encourage[d]” DFS-regulated entities to: (1) “continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations”; (2) “review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organzations”; and (3) “take prompt actions to manag[e] these risks and promote public health and safety.” Id., at 248, 251.2

The same day that DFS issued the Guidance Letters, Vullo and Governor Cuomo issued a joint press release that echoed many of the letters’ statements. The press release included a quote from Vullo “ ‘urg[ing] all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York’” to join those “‘that have already discontinued their arrangements with the NRA.’ ” Id., at 244. The press release cited Chubb’s decision to stop underwriting Carry Guard as an example to emulate. The next day, Cuomo tweeted: “‘The NRA is an extremist organization. I urge companies in New York State to revisit any ties they have to the NRA and consider their reputations, and responsibility to the public.’ ” Id., at 213, Complaint ¶51.

The State of New York therefore targetd "affinity products" in the insurance marketplace and therefore sought to discourage these businesses from doing lawful business with the NRA in order to "weaken" it.  

The NRA sued Vullo in Federal District court.  While the case survived a motion to dismiss in District Court, it did not survive a review of this ruling in the Second Circuit, which held the NRA could not state a First Amendment claim.  

With the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, the NRA sought and was granted certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, which found the alleged coercion of other entities, if proven, violates the First Amendment rights of the NRA. Specifically, while Vullo could criticize the NRA, she "could not wield her power, however, to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy." (Id., p. 8.)

As the unanimous court stated clearly, a governmnent official may not use their power to do something indirectly that they may not do directly; namely, punish an entity that does not disassociate itself from a political opponent whose advocacy offends those in power:

To state a claim that the government violated the First Amendment through coercion of a third party, a plaintiff must plausibly allege conduct that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff ’s speech. See 372 U. S., at 67–68. Accepting the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities into disassociating with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.

Consider first Vullo’s authority, which serves as a backdrop to the NRA’s allegations of coercion. The power that a government official wields, while certainly not dispositive, is relevant to the objective inquiry of whether a reasonable person would perceive the official’s communication as coercive. See id., at 66–67. Generally speaking, the greater and more direct the government official’s authority, the less likely a person will feel free to disregard a directive from the official. For example, imagine a local affinity group in New York that receives a strongly worded letter. One would reasonably expect that organization to react differently if the letter came from, say, the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York than if it came from an out-of-state school board.

As DFS superintendent, Vullo had direct regulatory and enforcement authority over all insurance companies and financial service institutions doing business in New York. See N. Y. Fin. Servs. Law Ann. §§202, 301. Just like the commission in Bantam Books, Vullo could initiate investigations and refer cases for prosecution. Indeed, she could do much more than that. Vullo also had the power to notice civil charges and, as this case shows, enter into consent decrees that impose significant monetary penalties. (Id., pp. 12-13.)

The suit will therefore be remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York for further proceedings.

Concurrences

Justice Brown Jackson wrote separately to stress her view that while governmental coercion can implicate the First Amendment, such coercion is not always tantamount to a violation of freedom of speech and other First Amendment rights and that one must analyze whether the coercion does in fact violate a party's right to freedom of speech.  

Justice Gorsuch also wrote separately and posited that while the majority opinions provided "guideposts," there may indeed be a violation of the First Amendment whether or not any guideposts are found.  In other words, the ultimate test is whether the offending action "could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff's speech.” (Id., p. 25.)

Analysis 

It is difficult to imagine how Judges Pooler, Chin, and Carney of the Second Circuit could have come to a more wrong decision.  Indeed, the Solicitor General of the United States (a Biden appointee, no less) filed an amicus brief in support of vacating the Second Circuit's opinion. The ease with which Vullo was apparently able to intimidate a sophisticated nationwide entity such as Chubb into terminating a program providing liability insurance to gun owners, a result that no reasonable person could argue would be beneficial to victims of gun violence, is also disheartening.

There should be no doubt, then, that the actions of New York's government, currently led by Governor Kathy Hochel (who could have put a stop to this anti-liberty nonsense by settling this action) were both unconstitutional and blatantly authoritarian.  So much so, in fact, that this should cause grave concern for anyone who lives in, does business with, or even visits New York.  One can imagine such Stalinist abusive tactics being used against, for example, the Sierra Club if they were to lobby against fracking or oil drilling and another state government were to find these actions against the interests of its citizens.  It would be equally odious if such a government would press banks and other financial institutions to cease doing business with the Sierra Club notwithstanding the fact their actions are protected activity under the First Amendment.

Finally, the fact a decision was issued in a timely fashion in a case of such import indicates the Court can move quickly where the outcome is determined by settled Constitutional principles.  It is sad to say that this is not always the case, as the Court often appears to be bogged down by dissenting opinions in cases decided by the vote of one or two justices where the dissenting justices, for want of a better word, simply refuse to acknowledge the clear language of our nation's founding document.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

Ride sharing service has no duty to perform background checks on all potential riders (Shikha v. Lyft)

California's Second District, Division Three, has ruled the general duty of due care one owes to another does not extend to include a duty owed by ride-share platforms to its drivers to perform "background checks" on all passengers. (Shikha v. Lyft (May 17, 2024, B321882.)

Writing for the court, Justice Adams summarized the factual and procedural background succinctly:

In February 2020, Al Shikha was working as a Lyft driver when he accepted a ride request through the Lyft app from passenger Ricky A. Alvarez.  During the ride, and without any warning or provocation, Alvarez repeatedly stabbed Al Shikha, causing lacerations to Al Shikha’s left hand and both legs.  In  April 2020, Al Shikha filed a complaint asserting three causes of action against Lyft: (1) failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance; (2) negligence; and (3) failure to provide a safe place of employment. (Id., pp. 2-3.)

The Second District explained there was no justification for imposing such a duty despite the general rule that all persons owe a duty of due care to others to act reasonably. (See, e.g., Civil Code section 1714.1.)   As the Second District opinion teaches, the statutory duty to verify the criminal record of a driver does not extend to doing so for passengers. As to any common-law duty, Shikha found no duty was owed to its own drivers even though Lyft was admittedly in a "special relationship" with these persons.  This conclusion required analysis of the factors enunciated by the Supreme Court in 1969's Rowland v. Christian, including the crucial factor of foreseeability:

To depart from the general principle that all persons owe a duty of care to avoid injuring others . . . ‘involves the balancing of a number of considerations’: ‘the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.’ [Citation.]” (Brown, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 217, citing Rowland, supra, 69 Cal.2d at pp. 112– 113; accord, Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 993, 1021 (Kuciemba).)  We consider the Rowland factors at “ ‘a relatively broad level of factual generality.’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] . . . Before analyzing the Rowland factors, we must identify the specific duty Al Shikha asserts Lyft should undertake. (Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, 1214 (Castaneda).)  The complaint alleges Lyft has a duty to conduct “basic, inexpensive public record background checks on passengers to determine whether they pose a risk of harm to drivers (or to obtain consent from drivers that they may be transporting a known criminal).” On appeal, Al Shikha argues Lyft is required to “either warn drivers about riders with serious criminal histories[ ] or otherwise exclude such riders from its network.” 

“ ‘The most important factor to consider in determining whether to create an exception to the general duty to exercise ordinary care . . . is whether the injury in question was foreseeable.’ [Citations.]” (Regents, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 629.) In assessing the Rowland factors in cases involving a defendant’s duty to prevent third party criminal conduct, courts have employed a “sliding-scale balancing formula.” [Citation.]  (Id., pp. 8-10.)

Discussing cases involving the duty to prevent the criminal acts of third parties, such as Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 666, the Second District explained that in deciding whether to impose a duty of due care, the "burden" of preventing the plaintiff's harm must be balanced against the effectiveness of the proposed precautions.  Here, this analysis indicated no duty of due care was owed given the proposed precaution (background checks) was both burdensome and of "dubious" effectiveness:

Al Shikha contends conducting criminal background checks on all potential rideshare passengers would entail minimal costs and would not be highly burdensome. Lyft, in contrast, asserts the obligation would impose significant financial and social burdens. Lyft argues screening each passenger would require a “huge and unwieldy infrastructure”; that it would expose Lyft to liability because there is no guarantee it would successfully identify people inclined to violence; it would be impossible for passengers to download and sign up for the app at the time a ride is needed; it would burden those with criminal histories who are not inclined to violence but still need transportation; it would unfairly discriminate against broad segments of the population; it would have an “unfair or even unlawful[ly] discriminatory effect on minorities and marginalized populations”; and it would conflict with the strong public policy of maintaining consumer privacy. As the court determined in Castaneda, we similarly conclude here that conducting criminal background checks on all rideshare passengers would be “a burdensome, dubiously effective and socially questionable obligation . . . .” (Castaneda, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1217.) (Id., p. 17.)

The Shikha  court noted that not only did plaintiff fail to provide any cogent argument as to why and how a background check would prevent future injuries, but logic dictated background checks cast a very wide net, as nearly one in three adult Californians have an arrest record. (Id., p. 19.)

It should also be noted Shikha discussed the recent case of Kuciemba v. Victory Woodwork, involving the supposed duty owed by a landowner to the spouse of someone working on the land to prevent the worker's exposure to COVID-19.  The  California Supreme Court unanimously held the spouse's was limited to a workers compensation remedy.

Of course, plaintiff in Shikha argued there was a "failure to warn" of the potential harm from the violent passenger.  However, in Moses v. McKeever a visitor to a condo similarly argued they were owed the duty to be "warned" about a defect in the HOA's common area because such an injury to those entering and exiting the condo was "foreseeable."  However, the appellate court found there was no duty owed by an individual owner or tenant to warn of defects in the HOA's common area.

Analysis

When looking at both practicalities and public policy, it appears the result in Shikha could not have been otherwise.  Indeed, if the duty plaintiff sought to impose were imposed on ride-sharing services, a whole host of persons who do not have access to their own vehicle could potentially be barred from using these services.  This includes not only convicted felons but also, more broadly, those who have been arrested for a wide variety of offenses even if not ultimately charged or convicted.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

Opinion: Disrupting a University is an attack on our civilization

In his masterpiece Civilisation: A Personal View by Kenneth Clark, a 13-part television series, Mr. Clark stands in front of the Notre Dame Cathedral and says, essentially, that if even one cannot define civilization, one knows it when one sees it.  He could have easily stood in front of the Imperial Palace in Japan, the Opera House in Sydney, Angkor Wat in Cambodia, or Corcovado in Rio — for when we see something that mankind has built, something which requires both creativity, struggle, and, indeed, human genius, we know that it represents civilization in all its flaws and grandeur.

In the past few days, we have all seen students and others assaulted and even tasered, windows broken, classes and graduations canceled, and sheer hate against fellow humans based simply upon their religion and/or race.  These actions are in violation of not only University Codes of Conduct but also state and Federal laws, and, of course, the Constitutional rights of the persons against whom these “protesters” seek to bar from University campuses.

At a minimum, these spoiled and ignorant undergraduates should be arrested and, indeed, expelled and not merely suspended.  Faculty who have joined them in their hate and the accompanying attempts to shut down learning should similarly be arrested if they have violated the law and then fired.  This should occur after a public and televised hearing, not only to preserve the right to due process but also so that we may see what each individual has done to set back civilization and take us back in time to a more brutal, selfish, and hate-filled past.

No University can survive as a University with students who call for the genocide of the Jewish people, support Hamas and its rape of women and murder of children in front of their parents (and vice versa), and, indeed, who seem oblivious to the fact that their fellow Americans are still being held hostage by Hamas.

Indeed, no civilization can withstand such actions unless they are condemned in the strongest terms.

The rejoinder, of course, is that within the hate and fascist attempts to shut down other people’s points of view, there is some sort of “point” being made — a claim belied by the fact that no one should listen to anyone who attempts to occupy the public square to the exclusion of other voices.  In our common law tradition, the concept of forfeiture is relevant to both the relinquishment of rights and the concept of equity. Anyone attacking civilization forfeits any chance to change our mind.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

Bui v. Ky: Spouse of candidate not “limited purpose public figure” for purposes of defamation law

 

California’s Fourth District, Division Three, has found the spouse of someone running for office is not automatically considered a “limited purpose public figure” for defamation law, meaning the plaintiff does not have to prove “malice” to prevail. (Bui v. Ky (May 8, 2024) G062338.)  Writing for the majority, Justice Delaney explained the statements at issue:

The full scope of actions allegedly engaged in by defendants were specified in the complaint as follows: “On or about February 13, 2022, Defendant [Nam] interviewed [Ngo] on his YouTube channel. During that interview Defendants said and implied that they knew the family of [plaintiff], that she [(plaintiff)] was the daughter of a Commander of the Communist Party regime, [and] that her husband’s family and relatives were all communists. Defendants identified [plaintiff’s] father as ‘Vu Thanh’, a high ranking communist leader, a Commander, and published several photos of an older man in a communist uniform, confirmed by Defendant NGO KY as [plaintiff’s] father. Defendants further claimed that during the 2022 Tet parade, that [plaintiff] and several friends all wore red with yellow hats, just like the communist regime’s flag, and that they danced and played communist music all along Bolsa Ave.” According to the complaint, these statements were false. It elaborated: “[Plaintiff’s] father was a civil engineer who retired in 2000. He never participated in the military. The man in uniform photo does not show [plaintiff’s] father. [Plaintiff] never participated or was involved with the Communist Party. [Plaintiff] wore a red dress, symbolic of the Lunar new year, in the Tet parade. The music played was Vietnamese pop music for the young people to dance to. It was not communist music.” (Id., p. 3.)

Plaintiff brought a Special Motion to Strike based upon Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, which permits a defendant to challenge a complaint — by providing evidence such as written declarations —  if it involves certain “protected activity” under the First Amendment and the defense shows the plaintiff can not show they will prevail.  The public policy underlying this motion is to provide a summary proceed to dispose of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or "SLAPP" suits:

“The Legislature enacted section 425.16 in response to ‘a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.’” (Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson (2019) 6 Cal.5th 610, 619.) The special motion to strike provided for in the statute is “‘intended to resolve quickly and relatively inexpensively meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech on matters of public interest.’” (Ibid.) By legislative direction, the statute is to “be construed broadly.” (§ 425.16, subd. (a).) “Litigation of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-step process. First, ‘the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims “aris[e] from” protected activity in which the defendant has engaged.’” (Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995, 1009 (Bonni).) The statute sets forth the four categories of protected activity. (§ 425.16, subd. (e).) “Second, for each claim that does arise from protected activity, the plaintiff must show the claim has ‘at least “minimal merit.”’” (Bonni, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 1009.) This step of the anti-SLAPP analysis “has been described as a summaryj udgment-like procedure. [Citation.] The court determines whether ‘“the plaintiff has stated a legally sufficient claim and made a prima facie factual showing sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment.”’ [Citation.] The plaintiff ‘“may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.”’ [Citation.] The defendant may submit evidence in support of its motion. [Citation.]  (Id., pp. 9-10.)

Judge Lee of the Orange County Superior Court granted the motion to strike and the plaintiff appealed.  The appellate court upheld the grant as to the claim for emotional distress, as the motion and opposition showed the anti-SLAPP statute applied and that plainiff's claim lacked merit.  

However, the grant of the Special Motion to Strike was reversed as to the defamation claim.  The Fourth District agreed with defendant that the anti-SLAPP law applied because the election involved the “public interest,” but found the Special Motion to Strike should have been denied as plaintiff had demonstrated her defamation claim had merit and she indeed might prevail.  

This holding was based in large part upon a rejection of defendant’s claim that plaintiff was a public figure for the limited purpose of the candidacy of her husband and, therefore, under New York Times v. Sullivan, had to show “actual malice” on the part of the defendant to prevail.  

The Bui opinion therefore teaches that whether a spouse is a “public figure” depends on the facts and not all spouses of candidates meet this test:

Where we diverge from defendants’ proffered analysis is the next step, which concerns plaintiff’s involvement in the debate. From defendants’ perspective, “[a] candidate does not run in isolation; in making [the decision to run for office] he or she brings the candidate’s family into the public eye.” To the extent this is an urge for us to find any political candidate’s family members to be limited purpose public figures simply by reason of the candidate’s choice to run for public office, we decline to so hold. Defendants do not point us to any authority for such a broad sweeping rule.  Moreover, doing so would effectively turn family members of a political candidate, including children, into public figures through no purposeful action of their own. The Supreme Court has cautioned that the finding of such involuntary public figure status “must be exceedingly rare.” (Gertz, supra, 418 U.S. at p. 345.) We find no justification for the families of political candidates, generally, to be one of those “exceedingly rare” instances. (Id., p. 13; emphasis added and footnote and citations omitted.)

Analysis 

The unstated context of this opinion is the fact that many in the Vietnamese-American community remain opposed to erasing the horrors of the communist regime in Vietnam that has ruled the country since the invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam following the withdrawal of United States forces.  The allegation that someone has cooperated with this murderous regime is considered highly inflammatory and therefore highly defamatory to those who risked their lives to escape Vietnam. 

 

The Fourth District made the right call here: a rule that a family member of a political candidate is a political figure simply because they are related to the candidate would greatly expand the concept of who is and is not a “public figure” and, therefore, must meet a much higher bar to prove defamation.  

This, of course, comports with public policy, as such 1) encourages candidacy for political office, and 2) discourages the making of false statements as to the family of a candidate.

Finally, this case again shows the importance of knowing when and when not to file a Special Motion to Strike as opposed to simply filing an ordinary demurrer challenging the complaint on its face.  Unlike a demurrer, a Special Motion to Strikeis is decided upon evidence, and not simply the language in the complaint, and in many circumstances, this is a great advantage to the moving defendant.  However, such a motion is also more "high stakes" as, unlike a demurrer, under section 426.15 attorney fees may be awarded to the prevailing party upon a Special Motion to Strike.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

Breaking news - Supreme Court rules legislative bodies cannot "take" private property by way of untethered "fees" (Sheetz v. County of El Dorado)

United States Supreme Court:  legislative bodies cannot "take" property by way of unlimited "fees" 

A recent Supreme Court opinion illustrates how lower courts often get it completely wrong, despite apparently clear precedent, and as this case shows, this is particularly likely to occur when courts get swept along with a judicial trend.  Such an unfortunate trend is interpreting the Fifth Amendment's bar against taking property without just compensation so narrowly as to permit the government to do virtually whatever it wants to a landowner's property, no matter logic or the law. 

In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. 22–1074 (April 12, 2024), a unanimous Supreme Court found California courts had it entirely wrong when they found (the term "rubber stamp" comes to mind) an outrageous "fee" a landowner must pay to build a home -- having no relationship to the services provided or the cost of the project to local government -- did not implicate the bar against the "taking" of private property. The practical effect of ignoring the full effect of the Firth Amendment is that "fees" enacted by a legislative body have no upward limit and may take five, ten, or more percent of the value of the property, and a property owner may not even bring a Fifth Amendment claim.

The opinion authored by Justice Barett found these courts had misapplied prior precedent.  As the syllabus to the opinion sets forth, the issue was whether a California county could impose a $23,420 "traffic impact fee" upon an ordinary residential landowner unlucky enough to own a lot in El Dorado County and who wished to build a home:

As a condition of receiving a residential building permit, petitioner George Sheetz was required by the County of El Dorado to pay a $23,420 traffic impact fee. The fee was part of a “General Plan” enacted by the County’s Board of Supervisors to address increasing demand for public services spurred by new development. The fee amount was not based on the costs of traffic impacts specifically attributable to Sheetz’s particular project, but rather was assessed according to a rate schedule that took into account the type of development and its location within the County. Sheetz paid the fee under protest and obtained the permit. He later sought relief in state court, claiming that conditioning the building permit on the payment of a traffic impact fee constituted an unlawful “exaction” of money in violation of the Takings Clause. In Sheetz’s view, the Court’s decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825, and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374, required the County to make an individualized determination that the fee imposed on him was necessary to offset traffic congestion attributable to his project. The courts below ruled against Sheetz based on their view that Nollan and Dolan apply only to permit conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis by administrators, not to a fee like this one imposed on a class of property owners by Board-enacted legislation. 84 Cal. App. 5th 394, 402, 300 Cal. Rptr. 3d 308, 312.

In other words, the trial court, the Third Appellate District of California, and the California Supreme Court (which denied review) did not give full effect to precedent such as Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994) indicating a fee with no nexus to the effect of the actual development is a "taking."  As Justice Barret wrote:

The California Court of Appeal rejected that argument because the traffic impact fee was imposed by legislation, and, according to the court, Nollan and Dolan apply only to permit conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis by administrators. That is incorrect. The Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions. (Sheetz., p. 14.)

Justice Barret and the remaining eight justices all agreed the fact a fee was imposed by a legislative body, rather than being imposed by a regulatory power, did not insulate said fee from scrutiny.  Simply put, the Bill of Rights applies equally to the executive and legislative branches of government.  

Therefore, the majority opinion explained the proper test for considering whether a "fee" is a taking:

Our decisions in Nollan and Dolan address this potential abuse of the permitting process. There, we set out a two-part test modeled on the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 597 (1972) (government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests”). First, permit conditions must have an “essential nexus” to the government’s land-use interest. Nollan, 483 U. S., at 837. The nexus requirement ensures that the government is acting to further its stated purpose, not leveraging its permitting monopoly to exact private property without paying for it. See id., at 841. Second, permit conditions must have “‘rough proportionality’” to the development’s impact on the land-use interest. Dolan, 512 U. S., at 391. A permit condition that requires a landowner to give up more than is necessary to mitigate harms resulting from new development has the same potential for abuse as a condition that is unrelated to that purpose. See id., at 393. This test ap- plies regardless of whether the condition requires the land- owner to relinquish property or requires her to pay a “monetary exactio[n]” instead of relinquishing the property. Koontz, 570 U. S., at 612–615. (Id., p. 6.)

Analysis

The degree to which the lower courts "got it wrong" is stunning, and, in particular, the narrow reading of Nollan/Dolan is quite troubling.  As to the failure of the California Supreme Court to show any interest in preventing local government from unlawfully taking private property, the fact it declined to review an appellate opinion finding one of the protections of the Bill of Rights does not apply simply because it was the legislature that violated a citizen’s rights speaks for itself.

Though the opinion was unanimous, it leaves open the question of whether a particular fee is permissible, to wit, whether a particular fee meets constitutional muster, i.e, whether it has an  "“‘essential nexus’” to the government’s land-use interest and has “‘rough proportionality’” to a property’s impact on that interest." (Concurrence by J. Gorsuch, p. 1.)

Of course, if a legislature or similar body may impose an unlimited "fee" upon someone wishing to build a single home, under the rubric that limitations on such fees do not apply to legislative enactments, then the Fifth Amendment "takings clause" has no effect as long as the law classifies the taking as a legislatively-mandated "fee."

As noted in his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch is of the opinion whether a fee is a "taking" does not depend upon whether it is imposed upon a single property or a class of properties as the same constitutional rules apply to the rights of the "many" as they do to the "few."  Justice Gorsuch notes the majority opinion leaves this question for another day:

The Court notes but does not address a separate question: whether the Nollan/Dolan test operates differently when an alleged taking affects a “class of properties” rather than “a particular development.” (Id.)

Indeed, the concurrence of Justice Kavanaugh, to which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined, recognizes this issue has not been resolved.  However, Justice Kavanaugh takes the view the Sheetz opinion does not prohibit local government from tailoring land-use fees based upon the effect of an entire development in toto rather than requiring that the fee have a nexus to the effect of a single property owner.

Finally, the role of the Pacifica Legal Foundation must be noted. As did the Cato Institute, Pacifica filed an amicus curiae brief.  If it were not for the efforts of his own counsel and these "friends of the court, Mr. Sheetz might still be stuck paying a nearly $24,000 "traffic fee" to build what the Supreme Court termed "a modest prefabricated house" for his wife and grandson.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn