Vice President-elect JD Vance addressed the issue of clemency for those involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol events during a recent interview.
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Vance articulated his stance on the matter, emphasizing a distinction between nonviolent participants and those who engaged in violence, Breitbart reported.
Vance discussed the potential pardons and underscored that peaceful demonstrators should be considered for clemency, whereas individuals involved in violent conduct should not be pardoned.
During the broadcast, Vance expressed his views while conversing with program host Shannon Bream. He stated that individuals who demonstrated peacefully on January 6 should be eligible for pardons. However, he strongly opposed granting clemency to anyone who resorted to violence on that day.
The conversation delved into the criteria for deciding who qualifies for a pardon in relation to the January 6 events. Vance highlighted the importance of maintaining equity in judicial processes. The Vice President-elect voiced concerns that certain participants in the events were subjected to punitive measures by the Department of Justice that he deemed unfair.
Vance explained to Bream that some individuals had been treated harshly by authorities in a manner comparable to gang members. He argued that such treatment for merely peaceful protests was unjust. Therefore, Vance supported the pardoning of these individuals, suggesting that their prosecution was disproportionate.
In his remarks, Vance stated there was a need to rectify the perceived unfair prosecutions following the January 6 events. He emphasized his commitment to the principle of equal application of the law. According to Vance, addressing these issues of unfair treatment is crucial for the integrity of the justice system.
Sounding a clarion call for balance, Vance affirmed the need for a systematic approach. He pointed out the perceived injustice in the legal handling of some cases post-January 6. Vance believes these situations deserve scrutiny and remedial action.
The discussion on "Fox News Sunday" revolved around televised narratives that focused on where the line for pardons could reasonably be drawn. Addressing this topic, Bream questioned how decision-makers would determine eligibility for clemency. In response, Vance reiterated the need to distinguish between peaceful protestors and those involved in violent actions.
Vance's articulation of this balance implies that those who participated but did not engage in violence should have their cases revisited. He pointed out that the justice system's response to them had, at times, been excessive and needed rectification.
The Vice President-elect’s statements resonate with a broader conversation about the role of justice and its fair application under challenging circumstances. Vance’s perspective aligns with a legal reform agenda aimed at ensuring equity for all citizens, regardless of the context of their actions.
Vance believed addressing discrepancies in legal outcomes could reinforce public faith in the justice system. His comments suggest that by promoting a balanced approach, the government can work toward unifying rather than dividing the nation further.
Throughout the session, the interview and Vance’s insights bring to light ongoing questions regarding legal decisions related to January 6. Vance consistently emphasized the significance of fair and equal law enforcement.
He reiterated that while those taking part in violent actions do not merit pardons, a fair assessment of peaceful participants’ cases is necessary. The Vice President-elect stressed this distinction is critical for ensuring that justice is appropriately served.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has approved the release of part of Jack Smith's "political hit job" on President-elect Donald Trump, but has restricted access, including congressional access, to a second chapter.
What is being released is prosecutor Jack Smith's opinions in which he claims that Trump tried to interfere in the 2020 presidential election through the events of Jan. 6, 2021, even though Trump had called for his supporters to protest peacefully before a few hundred rioted and trespassed and caused vandalism.
Evidence later confirmed that then-Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted her party was largely at fault for not having enough troops on hand to quell any disturbances, a solution that Trump has suggested, but was rejected.
"The report is nothing less than another attempted political hit job whose sole purpose is to disrupt the presidential transition and undermine President Trump's exercise of executive power," the incoming president's lawyers had described.
"The Final Report goes into more detail about the alleged crimes President Trump and others supposedly committed and involves evidence that was never released to the public–indeed, evidence that could not be released, such as those involving official acts," they wrote.
Fox News reported the information from Smith, who earlier was ruled by a federal court to have been appointed to the "special counsel" post improperly, was approved for release by Judge Aileen Cannon.
Her order allows the eventual release of one volume of Smith's opinions about Trump. It prevents the release, even to Congress, of another volume concerning Smith's claims about government documents.
Both cases against Trump now are dead, anyway, as Smith dropped them when Trump was re-elected to the White House, and Smith now has quit his federally paid job.
Cannon had temporarily blocked release of Smith's work last week.
At issue were requests from two of Trump's co-defendants in the documents case who said release of the details would harm their still-pending cases.
The report explained, "It is customary for special counsels to release a final report, detailing the findings of their investigation and explaining any prosecution or declination decisions they reached. In Smith's case, the prosecution decision is immaterial, given Trump's status as president-elect and long-standing Justice Department policy against bringing criminal charges against a sitting president."
Cannon, in her order, did warn the DOJ that its representatives to her must be accurate.
According to the Gateway Pundit, Merrick Garland, Joe Biden's attorney general, fought with court submissions all weekend to have the claims from Smith released so they can be publicized.
The report said, "The Justice Department over the weekend said the January 6 volume of Jack Smith's report does NOT include information about the classified documents case. However, this is not true. In a motion filed over the weekend, the Justice Department admitted the January 6 volume of the report (DC case with Judge Chutkan) references the classified documents case (Florida case with Judge Cannon)."
Analysts have explained that Smith's claims now being publicized may not have been anything that could have been brought to court. Further, the release in this way deprives Trump of a formal response procedure that he would have had if they had been presented in a judicial setting.
Before now-former Special Counsel Jack Smith resigned, he had quite a hard time in the courtroom against President-elect Donald Trump's co-defendants, who made a similar request to Judge Aileen Cannon that the incoming president did.
According to The Hill, the two co-defendants in the case asked the judge to stay the release of Smith's final report, which if granted, would likely keep it under wraps until Trump is in office.
Trump, along with the co-defendants, have worked overtime to attempt to block the release of the final report on the election interference probe.
Valet Walt Nauta and property manager Carlos de Oliveira were denied their request by an appeals court.
Though the two men were denied by the appeals court, the court left in place a ruling by Cannon that prevented the release of the report for three days after the appeals court.
The Hill reported:
Smith’s team before dawn filed a motion asking Cannon to waive the three-day period, likewise asking the 11th Circuit to override that directive from the lower court.
It added:
But lawyers for Trump’s two co-defendants wrote Friday that in failing to address the three-day waiting period in Cannon’s ruling and directing prosecutors to challenge that timeline with the Florida judge, the appeals court was greenlighting additional proceedings before Cannon.
Attorneys for the co-defendants fired back.
"The Government literally asked the Eleventh Circuit to vacate the January 7, 2025 Order, and the Eleventh Circuit refused to do so. For practical purposes, Defendants argument in the Eleventh Circuit that the matter belongs initially in this Court prevailed," they wrote.
They added, "This matter was properly left to the sound discretion of this Court."
Part of the strategy by the two co-defendants is to run out the clock to allow Trump and his incoming Department of Justice to quash the case completely.
Once the case is fully dropped, any notion of the report being released will instantly go away.
Over the weekend, in a bombshell announcement, Jack Smith resigned from his position.
According to Politico, his resignation announcement came in a footnote of a legal filing.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President-elect Donald Trump has blasted the judge and his lawfare case in New York, in which Trump today was sentenced to an "unconditional discharge," as a waste of taxpayers' money and a "witch hunt" by Democrats against him.
It is Juan Merchan, a judge who allowed Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to bring his politicized charges against Trump, who announced Friday Trump's sentence, no jail, no fines and no probation.
"The Radical Democrats have lost another pathetic, unAmerican Witch Hunt. After spending tens of millions of dollars, wasting over 6 years of obsessive work that should have been spent on protecting New Yorkers from violent, rampant crime that is destroying the City and State, coordinating with the Biden/Harris Department of Injustice in lawless Weaponization, and bringing completely baseless, illegal, and fake charges against your 45th and 47th President, ME, I was given an UNCONDITIONAL DISCHARGE," Trump wrote on social media.
"That result alone proves that, as all Legal Scholars and Experts have said, THERE IS NO CASE, THERE WAS NEVER A CASE, and this whole Scam fully deserves to be DISMISSED. The real Jury, the American People, have spoken, by Re-Electing me with an overwhelming MANDATE in one of the most consequential Elections in History. As the American People have seen, this 'case' had no crime, no damages, no proof, no facts, no Law, only a highly conflicted Judge, a star witness who is a disbarred, disgraced, serial perjurer, and criminal Election Interference.
"Today's event was a despicable charade, and now that it is over, we will appeal this Hoax, which has no merit, and restore the trust of Americans in our once great System of Justice. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Legal experts have suggested the case lacks any merit and eventually the conviction will be thrown out. In fact, federal prosecutors reviewed the facts earlier, and decided there were no grounds for charges against Trump.
Merchan, who has a record of financially supporting Democrat candidates and whose daughter was making money from Democrats while her father was ruling against Trump in his courtroom, announced the sentence in the case labeled "hush money" by legacy media.
In it, Bragg claimed business reporting errata by Trump's companies amounted to felonies, even though they ordinarily would have been misdemeanors for which the statute of limitations had expired.
Bragg said they were felonies because they were in pursuit of some other, unidentified, crime. In fact, jurors failed to identify that crime, and Merchan inexplicably said their verdict didn't have to be unanimous in the case that was just one prong of Democrats' multi-jurisdiction lawfare campaign, a failed effort to use various created civil and criminal cases to keep him from running for president again.
Bragg brought to court, and Merchan allowed, salacious testimony from a former porn star and a discredited lawyer in order to convince jurors in the leftist enclave of Manhattan, which repeatedly has voted by vast majorities against Trump, to convicted Trump of 34 counts.
The issue was that Trump's lawyer paid the porn star for silence about an alleged affair both denied happened. The payments made to the lawyer were labeled as legal expenses.
George Washington University law professor, and constitutional expert, Jonathan Turley, said the case will "will cement the image of Trump for many in the country as a 'victim of lawfare.'"
Merchan, who analysts have suggested is thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court's recent immunity ruling regarding the Trump cases, recently assumed the pulpit to lecture Trump over his "disdain for the third branch of government."
He accused Trump of going to "great lengths to broadcast on social media and other forums his lack of respect for judges, juries, grand juries and the justice system as a whole."
That "disdain" from Trump followed a years-long series of lawfare cases assembled by Democrats who appeared to be trying to jail him to keep him from running for the White House again.
For example, multiple charges were filed over the government documents Trump held after he left the presidency. However, federal prosecutors found Joe Biden liable for the same offense, but gave him a free pass for his actions. One jurisdiction even claimed an "organized crime" conspiracy involved Trump.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It was none other than the U.S. Supreme Court that a few years ago struck down a state program in Maine that attacked religious schools.
The state had said a program to provide tuition to students in locations where there were not public schools, so they could be at private schools, excluded any institution linked to faith.
But when that ruling came down, the state simply adopted another law to accomplish the same discrimination through another method, and now that fight is pending before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Three years ago in the Carson case, the Supreme Court ordered Maine to stop leaving families like the Radonises out in the cold," said Adèle Keim, senior counsel at Becket. "But Maine wouldn't listen.
"Now Maine wants to have bureaucrats in Augusta tell St. Dominic how Catholic it can be. Maine should drop its newest effort to 'end run' the Supreme Court and let St. Dominic get back to serving the Maine families that need it most."
Explained Becket, "The Radonis family and a Catholic school in Maine were in federal appeals court today challenging a state law that excludes most faith-based schools from serving rural families through the state's tuition assistance program. Even though the Supreme Court struck down Maine's religious ban in 2022, state officials continue to exclude faith-based schools and families who want to participate in the program. In St. Dominic Academy v. Makin, Becket argued on behalf of the Radonises and St. Dominic Academy to restore their ability to access state funding."
Becket noted Keith and Valori Radonis are Catholic parents in rural Maine "who live in an area without a public high school and want their children to attend a school that upholds their beliefs."
They chose St. Dominic Academy.
Another family involved in the case, Daniel and Nancy Cronin, also live in an area without a public high school and want their son, who has dyslexia, to attend St. Dominic so that he can receive the academic support he needs, the legal team explained.
Their attendance was allowed for several years through the state's tuition assistance program, which provided help to parents in rural areas where public schools don't exist.
Then the state targeted the faith schools, and when it's agenda was stymied by the Supreme Court, lawmakers simply wrote a way around the legal decision.
"As Catholics, we want to raise our children in an environment that teaches them to put their faith at the heart of everything they do," said Keith and Valori Radonis. "Unfortunately, Maine is cheating us of this choice by cutting faith-based schools out of Maine's tuition program. We pray the court puts an end to this exclusion once and for all."
A statement from First Liberty Institute, which also is participating in the dispute on behalf of Crosspoint Church, Bangor Christian Schools and Consovoy McCarthy, explained the new Maine law allowing discrimination is just wrong.
"Maine excluded religious schools from its school choice program for over 40 years, but the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear in Carson v. Makin that such religious discrimination is unconstitutional," said Jeremy Dys, of First Liberty Institute. "Now, our clients would be punished with heavy fines if they hold to their religious beliefs. We hope the court puts an end to Maine's tactics, which are odious to our Constitution."
The institute explained, "Maine's tuitioning program is the second oldest school choice program in the nation. It allows parents to send their children to the public or private school of their choice—something that is especially important in the rural areas of Maine. From 1980 until the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Carson v. Makin, parents could not use their tuition benefit at a religious school. But in anticipation of the Supreme Court's decision striking down Maine's religious discrimination, the Maine legislature changed the law, imposing its nondiscrimination laws on religious schools in such a way that would require BCS either to violate its sincerely held religious beliefs or face hefty fines for operating their school according to religious beliefs government officials believe to be discriminatory."
The death of a Delaware police officer in the line of duty back in 2021 shocked the conscience of the community he served, and now, according to the state's high court, the man convicted of the heinous crime will remain in prison for the rest of his life.
An appeal pursued by Randon Wilkerson, the individual convicted of killing Cpl. Keith Heacook, has been denied by the Supreme Court of Delaware, leaving the murder with his original sentence of two life sentences plus 212 years and 30 days, as CBS affiliate WBOC reports.
It was on the morning of April 25, 2021, that 22-year Delmar Police Department veteran Heacook was responding to a 911 domestic violence call, as the Delaware attorney general's office outlined in a press release following Wilkerson's conviction.
Wilkerson proceeded to attack the responding officer, delivering a series of blows to the head which resulted in Heacook's death later in the week.
Eventually, Wilkerson was taken into custody and charged not just with Heacook's killing, but also with the assault of two elderly individuals on the same day.
The events of that fateful day prompted the state to charge Wilkerson with two first-degree murder charges, five counts of possessing a deadly weapon while committing a felony, three counts of deadly weapon possession by a prohibited person, two counts of first-degree assault, and a host of other counts.
Wilkerson's conviction was announced on October 16, 2023, though that was unfortunately not the end of the legal saga to which Heacook's family and community were subjected, as the convicted killer proceeded to file appeals up to the state's highest court.
It was in February 2024 that Wilkerson filed his appeal with the Delaware high court, and his main argument was that he had inadvertently taken bath salts, rather than methamphetamine as he intended to, on the day of his encounter with Heacook.
However, the involuntary intoxication contention pursued by Wilkerson at the high court did not find a receptive audience among the justices.
In the court's opinion, the justices noted that Wilkerson was a “veteran” abuser of drugs that included crack, heroin, and cocaine, as well as alcohol and cited a toxicology screening done on the day of his arrest that revealed the presence of methamphetamine, cocaine, as well as fentanyl – but not the bath salts he claimed.
A subsequent effort to prove the presence of bath salts in Wilkerson's blood was inconclusive, and he was eventually convicted in a jury trial, a development that led to his high court appeal.
The high court concluded in pertinent part, “We hold that a person who knowingly introduces an unlawful intoxicating substance into his or her body is precluded from presented an involuntary intoxication defense unless certain statutory exceptions apply,” leaving Wilkerson's conviction and sentence intact.
That Wilkerson will remain in prison for the remainder of his natural life will hopefully provide some degree of closure for the wife and son Cpl. Heacook was left behind, but his permanent absence from their lives can certainly never be properly remedied.
The community assuredly takes some degree of comfort that justice has been conclusively served in the death of a dedicated public servant whose commitment to helping others continued even after his death in the form of organ donation, as a tribute on the Officer Down Memorial Page respectfully reveals.
After engaging in a quest to convict Donald Trump for well over two years, now-former special counsel Jack Smith is departing his role not with a bang, but with little more than a whimper.
As Fox News reports, Smith announced his resignation from the Justice Department on Friday, doing so in very discreet fashion in a footnote at the end of a court filing.
Though Smith's resignation was not unexpected, given that he had already signaled his intention to leave his role in the wake of Trump's Nov. 5 election, it was the manner in which he let the world know that the process was complete that came as something of a surprise.
In the aforementioned court filing, Smith said simply, “The Special Counsel completed his work and submitted his final confidential report on January 7, 2025, and separated from the Department on January 10.”
Smith entered widespread public consciousness in November 2022, when Attorney General Merrick Garland tapped him to lead a probe of claimed interference by Trump in the 2020 election aftermath as well as to lead the investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents after departing the White House in 2021.
Though in the wake of Trump's recent electoral win, Smith sought to wind down his federal prosecutions of the president-elect, but that is not to say that he has given up entirely on his apparent desire to undermine his longstanding legal target on the way out the door.
The filing in which Smith dropped his resignation note was related to a comprehensive report he drafted on the investigations into Trump, which is itself the subject of a legal battle regarding its potential release, something the president-elect -- along with his former co-defendants in the documents case -- has opposed.
Not surprisingly, the news of Smith's formal exit from the Justice Department was welcomed by Trump, who took to his Truth Social platform to weigh in on the development.
For starters, Trump reposted a screenshot of an X post from Politico's Kyle Cheney, which read, “And so it ended for Jack Smith, not with the sunset ride of a conquering hero but a 24-word footnote indicating he had 'separated from the Justice Department,' his final report in limbo....”
Trump later declared, “Deranged Jack Smith was fired today by the DOJ. He is a disgrace to himself, his family, and his Country. After spending over $100,000,000 on the Witch Hunt against TRUMP, he left town empty handed!”
The president-elect was not finished, later posting, “The Stench of Deranged Jack Smith and his thugs is GONE. They were sent packing after spending over $100,000,000, destroying the lives of many people and families, who will never be the same again.”
“Deranged Jack accomplished nothing, except to show what complete losers my political opponents are!!!” Trump concluded.
With Trump poised to take office on roughly a week, speculation is rife that the incoming administration will begin probing Smith's actions to determine if he and others inside the DOJ ran afoul of the law in their pursuit of the now-president-elect.
Trump ally Mike Davis of the Article III Project famously suggested that Smith may want to “lawyer up” ahead of the presidential transition and given Joe Biden's ongoing deliberations about a potential preemptive pardon for the former special counsel and others similarly situated, all eyes will surely be on D.C. in the days and weeks to come.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case challenging the structure and appointment procedure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a decision that could potentially reshape the Affordable Care Act's stipulations on preventive health care services.
The central issue is whether the members of the task force were appointed in a manner consistent with the constitution, as the outcome may affect the obligation of insurers to provide coverage for preventive services at no cost to patients, The Hill reported.
In recent years, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has played a pivotal role in guiding healthcare, as it devises recommendations for more than 100 preventive services that insurers must cover without charging clients. This requirement was established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as ObamaCare.
The crux of the current Supreme Court case hinges on the constitutionality of how the members of the task force were appointed. This involves the potential need for presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, as opposed to their current appointment method.
The Biden administration is challenging the previous decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court ruled that task force members are “principal” officers, and therefore should be appointed via presidential nomination, followed by Senate confirmation.
The catalyst for the legal challenge was the task force’s advisory for an HIV-prevention drug known as PrEP. This recommendation incited objections from four individuals and two small businesses, who argued against the drug's endorsement.
PrEP, recognized for its efficacy in reducing HIV risk by approximately 99 percent when used correctly, has been a significant development in the medical landscape since 2012. Despite its effectiveness, the recommendation sparked debate over the task force's authority.
The Justice Department has voiced concerns about the potential impacts of the appellate court's ruling if left unchallenged. They have stated the decision poses a threat to essential healthcare protections that have benefitted millions of Americans for over a decade.
Meanwhile, Democratic attorneys general from 23 states, along with Washington, D.C., and various public health organizations have shown their support for the case petitioned by the administration.
On the opposing side, the challengers are being represented by America First Legal Foundation and attorney Jonathan Mitchell. In their submission, they expressed disagreement with the Solicitor General’s warnings regarding the potential consequences of upholding the 5th Circuit's decision.
Even so, they acknowledged the significant importance of the case, asserting that it meets the criteria deserving a Supreme Court review, given its potential to bring notable changes to the legal landscape surrounding preventive healthcare.
It is crucial to note that the 5th Circuit ruling did not have a nationwide impact, as it limited the immediate repercussions of its decision. Currently, the task force's recommendations are solely blocked for Braidwood Management, not affecting other entities across the United States.
Should the Supreme Court ultimately support the appellate decision, the manner of appointment of the task force members could be fundamentally altered. This might lead to revisions in how preventive services are covered under the ACA.
The outcome of the court’s decision could have far-reaching effects on health insurance policies across the country. An adverse ruling could dismantle the framework that has been safeguarding healthcare benefits for millions of people since 2010.
Fox News was buried in legal challenges in the wake of the 2020 election, after many of its hosts and anchors made various claims about the election that were unproven or outright false.
According to NPR, lawyers for the network are once again headed back to the courtroom regarding a 2020 election-related lawsuit filed by voting machine company Smartmatic.
The trip back to court will be a familiar one for the network, which lost a staggering $787 million in a settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for similar defamation claims. The settlement rocked the network and resulted in several popular hosts either being fired or ultimately leaving the network.
Thanks to a ruling from a New York state appellate court, Smartmatic will now be able to pursue a jaw-dropping $2.7 billion defamation case against the popular cable news network.
The pre-trial process of discovery for the lawsuit reportedly resulted in a mountain of damning pieces of evidence that showed what the network was allowing at the time some of its hosts and guests made the election-related claims.
NPR noted:
A flood of revelations from the pre-trial process of discovery yielded damning internal communications. The judge found that network figures from junior producers to primetime hosts, network executives, Murdoch and his son Lachlan knew that Joe Biden had won the election fairly. Yet, they allowed guests to spread lies that Trump had been cheated of victory to win back Trump viewers.
Maria Bartiromo and the late Lou Dobbs were some of the hosts named who allowed guests to make "unsubstantiated and wild" claims about Smarmatic. They were also accused for sometimes endorsing the allegations against the voting machine company.
NPR added:
Amid outcry, Fox News and Fox Business Network ran an awkward segment with a voting tech expert, Edward Perez, to present viewers with a rebuttal to those outlandish claims. Newsmax, a right-wing channel in competition with Fox for viewers who supported Trump, did much the same.
Smartmatic's lead attorney, Erik Connolly, released a statement after the appellate court's ruling.
"Today, the New York Supreme Court rebuffed Fox Corporation's latest attempt to escape responsibility for the defamation campaign it orchestrated against Smartmatic following the 2020 election," Connolly said in a statement.
He added, "Fox Corporation attempted, and failed, to have this case dismissed, and it must now answer for its actions at trial. Smartmatic is seeking several billion in damages for the defamation campaign that Fox News and Fox Corporation are responsible for executing. We look forward to presenting our evidence at trial."
Smarmatic machines were not nearly as widely used as Dominion Voting Systems voting machines, and Fox's lawyers questioned the sincerity of the value of the reported lost contracts Smartmatic is claiming.
Fox News lawyers released their own statement in the wake of the ruling.
"We will be ready to defend this case surrounding extremely newsworthy events when it goes to trial," the lawyers said.
They added, "As a report prepared by our financial expert shows, Smartmatic's damages claims are implausible, disconnected from reality, and on their face intended to chill First Amendment freedoms."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Whether a school board member is allowed to quote from the Bible, in public, for encouragement is on the court docket in Arizona.
Officials with First Liberty Institute and the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher have filed a brief encouraging the federal court there to affirm the right of Heather Rooks, the president of the Peoria Unif9ied School District Board, to recite from Scripture during meetings.
"Citing a quotation from any text, be it sacred or secular, for the purpose of encouragement or inspiration is completely protected under the Free Speech Clause of the U.S. Constitution," explained First Liberty Institute lawyer Erin Smith. "That conclusion is compelled by Supreme Court precedent and confirmed by history and tradition."
Matt Scorcio, of the Gibson law firm, said, "Our Nation's public officials have quoted scripture in performing their duties from the Founding through today. Heather Rooks' practice of opening her Board comments time with a brief quotation of scripture fits comfortably within that tradition, so it can't as a matter of law give rise to an Establishment Clause violation."
Rooks began her time with the board in January 2023, and she recently was elected president.
"During each Peoria School Board meeting, the agenda includes a brief 'Board comments' period where individual board members may offer remarks of their own choosing. Since the beginning of her public service on the board, Ms. Rooks opened her comments by quoting a short scripture from the Bible," the legal team said.
But various "anti-religious organizations" wrote to the board, demanding a complete censorship of her comments.
The previous board chief told her to stop using scripture, and a motion now filed with the court argues, "Far from being compelled by the Establishment Clause, the District's actions in this case violate Rooks' own rights of religious freedom and speech under state and federal law. As the Supreme Court put it recently in the landmark case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a 'government entity's concerns about phantom constitutional violations' never 'justify actual violations of an individual's First Amendment rights.' The Court should grant summary judgment to Rooks, award her nominal damages, and grant her declaratory relief."
The Daily Caller News Foundation reported when the dispute arose that Rooks went to court after being ordered to censor her Bible references.
It was Lisa Anne Smith, the board's lawyer, who dictated that members were not allowed to "pray or recite scripture during board meetings."
The legal action complained," The District's official policy and actions—which purport to ensure Rooks does 'not read scripture' or 'offer bible verses'—regulate her speech based on its content, message, and viewpoint. The District's policies and actions therefore chill her ability to freely speak, in violation of the First Amendment."