climate docket savage
https://www.climatedocket.com/?s=fourth+amendment&orderby=relevance&order=DESC&post_type=post%2Cpage
https://www.climatedocket.com/2019/05/21/national-association-manufacturers-climate-microsoft/
docket
microsoft is a prominent example of an American company walking a public relations tightrope on climate change. It professes a serious commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, touts its clean energy bonafides and vocally supports the Paris Climate Agreement and the dire need to combat a growing climate crisis. But it also remains a member of a trade group, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), which has worked for decades to delay action on climate change and defend the fossil fuel companies whose products cause it.
:{
}:
NAM, in fact, has been so proactive in anti-climate action projects that it draws comparisons to its support for the tobacco industry as it faced a liability battle in the 1980s. NAM, along with other trade groups, backed tobacco companies as they faced hundreds of lawsuits and were charged with racketeering by the federal government for deceiving the public about the catastrophic health hazards of smoking.
NAM has even hired the same law firm that defended the tobacco industry to launch an assault on climate liability lawsuits.
As then, NAM’s member companies face public pressure for supporting those efforts. Microsoft, along with other companies, including Intel and Proctor and Gamble, told Climate Liability News that they disagree with NAM’s actions and policy positions on climate change.
But they have not ended their memberships. While other climate change-denying groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council have suffered membership losses because companies like Google and Apple felt they could no longer be publicly associated with its tactics, NAM has experienced no such repercussions so far.
“The views expressed by NAM do not reflect Microsoft’s position on climate change,” a Microsoft spokesperson wrote in a statement. “Microsoft is committed to sustainability and addressing climate change. We work with many groups on various technology policy issues and do not expect that any organization’s agenda will align to ours in all policy areas.”
The Trade Group Tango
Whether a company joins—and remains—a member of NAM or any trade group depends on how much it agrees with the association’s activities and how its membership in the association affects its reputation, said Michael Barnett, a professor of management & global business at Rutgers Business School who has studied trade groups.
“[Trade associations] are effective by influencing what others outside the industry think of the industry, like regulators, like customers, like communities,” Barnett said.
Trade groups help shield individual companies from the public relations backlash of lobbying on behalf of their industry. They often work as organizing forces to oppose regulation of industries and to lobby government for favorable laws and policies.
“The member firms want cover, they want that legitimacy, they want an improved reputation, but they don’t want to do those things necessary to gain that,” Barnett said. “It’s sort of like they’ve hired a personal trainer and they want that trainer to say, ‘Eat cake and you’re going to get fit.’”
Sharon Eubanks, a former Department of Justice lawyer who led the government’s racketeering case against the tobacco industry, compared efforts by NAM to defend the fossil fuel industry’s inaction on climate change to efforts by trade groups to back the tobacco companies. She cited the Tobacco Institute and the Center for Tobacco Research, which provided faulty research and inaccurate testimony to support the tobacco industry’s lies about the harms of its product.
“I would say that this group is a little more in your face and direct than the tobacco industry was in what they are doing,” Eubanks said. “They tried to put on a fig leaf, the tobacco industry did, but NAM, there’s no fig leaf—it’s out there.”
NAM has attacked climate scientists, undermined international climate negotiations and worked to delay the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions through the Global Climate Coalition, a fossil fuel front group that operated from 1989 to 2002. NAM and the Global Climate Coalition were so closely intertwined that one recently discovered document instructs members to make dues checks payable to “NAM – Global Climate Coalition.”
More recently, NAM launched its Manufacturers’ Accountability Project to defend big polluters against climate liability suits. Formed in 2017, the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project has attempted to discredit municipalities filing suits against oil companies for the damage they’ve caused to the climate.
Last year NAM launched the Main Street Investors Coalition to fend off shareholder resolutions calling for more transparency and action on climate change.
Why Do NAM’s Members Abide Its Backing of Fossil Fuel Companies?
NAM doesn’t publicly list its members, and companies with executives on NAM’s board include large fossil fuel companies with a clear interest in preventing climate liability suits.
At the same time, other board members come from a wide variety of companies, some which appear to have a strong commitment to protecting the climate and have little or no chance of being named in a climate liability suit, including Pella, Microsoft, Intel, Mueller WP, Volvo, Ball, Proctor and Gamble, Corning and Baker Boy, a North Dakota-based donut chain, among others.
Microsoft, which has recently come under fire for joining the Climate Leadership Council, an industry-backed group advocating for a carbon dividend plan that could do away with climate liability suits, has tried to back away from NAM’s work without leaving NAM.
Intel is also carefully distancing itself from NAM’s campaigns to delay action on climate change.
Intels positions don’t always align with NAM’s, said William Moss, an Intel spokesperson.
“In the case of climate change, we have raised it directly with NAM, and state in our climate change policy our support for the IPCC and the Paris Agreement, and our own commitment to reducing our carbon footprint,” said Moss, who added that the overall benefits of Intel’s membership in NAM outweigh its differences on issues like climate change.
“In areas where we may have significant differences, we often publish our position separately so our stakeholders know where we stand,” Moss said.
Proctor and Gamble said its NAM membership is aligned with its general business goals and strategies, but the company does not agree with NAM’s position on every issue.
“We also respect and value the views of our shareholders, especially on topics that are of importance to the company,” said a Proctor and Gamble spokesperson in a statement. “The trade associations of which we are members are aware of our policy positions, including our views on climate policies. We are consistent in the positions we share with external stakeholders as well as in our trade association engagement.”
NAM did not respond to a request for comment, but in a radio interview last year, its president, Jay Timmons, claimed NAM’s 250 board members are “unified in their concern about what lawsuits like this will do to manufacturing operations if they are successful,” Timmons said, referring to climate liability suits.
Guy Moos, president ofBaker Boy, said his company remains a member of NAM because of other membership benefits, not its stance on climate issues.
“In North Dakota, we’re probably wired a little differently because the Bakken oil field is a pretty big deal around here and so I personally don’t take a position of anti-fossil fuel,” Moos said.
Barnett said the more trade associations try to serve a narrow focus, the more difficult it is to retain a broad industry base.
After a recent review of its membership in several trade associations, Shell found it had “some misalignment” with NAM’s climate-related policy positions. While the oil giant announced it would not renew its membership in the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, it said it would “continue to engage with [NAM] and closely monitor our alignment on climate-related topics.”
Shell is facing climate liability suits in the U.S. for the damage its products have done to the climate and for failing to adequately plan for and protect its facilities from climate change. Seven environmental and human rights organizations in the Netherlands have filed suit against Shell for failing to align its business model with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Barnett said fossil fuel companies will continue to accrue liability as long as they deny responsibility for climate change.
trade Group Gears Up to Discredit Climate Liability Movement
DECEMBER 15, 2017
FILED UNDER: CALIFORNIA CLIMATE LAWSUITS, FEATURED
By Dana Drugmand
In response to a growing wave of climate change lawsuits and legal investigations attempting to hold fossil fuel corporations accountable for climate consequences and decades of deception, a large industry trade group is now :{fervently pushing back:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: with an “accountability” initiative of its own.
The :{National Association of Manufacturers:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: (NAM) has launched the :{Manufacturers’ Accountability Project:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, (MAP) which aims to undermine what it calls a coordinated campaign that “jeopardizes the ability of all manufacturers to continue growing and providing jobs to millions of Americans.” NAM identifies those behind the campaign as “trial lawyers, public officials, deep-pocketed foundations and other activists.”
The project is similar to previous industry-backed public relations campaigns against lawyers defending victims dying of asbestos-related diseases, those taking on the tobacco industry and advocates fighting for lead paint removal.
MAP targets the new climate tort cases filed in California, as well as the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general investigations into ExxonMobil. Blog posts on the MAP website call out actions by specific individuals and organizations, including attorney :{Matt Pawa:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, New York Attorney General :{Eric Schneiderman:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, 350.org founder :{Bill McKibben:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, the :{Union of Concerned Scientists:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, the nonprofit news website :{InsideClimate News:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: and others.
The project springs from NAM’s :{Manufacturers’ Center for Legal Action:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, which alleges that this activist campaign is politically motivated and intended for profit at the expense of American workers. “It has become clear that these activist plaintiffs’ attorneys, sympathetic academics and agenda-driven media outlets are distorting the use of tort litigation to advance their narratives with the ultimate objective of undermining manufacturers and the engine of the American economy,” NAM senior vice president and general counsel Linda Kelly said in a :{press release:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: announcing the initiative.
One of its main arguments is that plaintiff attorneys are bringing these climate cases purely for their own profit and the expense of fighting the claims comes at the expensive of job and wage increases. In a :{November op-ed:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: in Investor’s Business Daily, Kelly wrote, “Trial lawyers are waging a reckless assault against American manufacturers in pursuit of a fat payday for themselves.”
Kelly did not respond to requests for comment.
Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law debunked Kelly’s claim that climate cases are driven by trial lawyers seeking a big payday, calling it simplistic and incorrect.
“The challenge with that argument is that these cases are not simply being brought by lawyers. They’re being brought by nonprofit organizations, they’re being brought by state attorneys general, they’re now being brought by cities’ attorneys,” Muffett said. “The most obvious profit motive involves those companies who are being sued, not those who are bringing the investigation.”
“The deep irony is the name of the website and of the project,” Muffett added. “We would welcome them helping us hold those who are most responsible for climate impacts responsible, but that is clearly not their goal.”
The timing of the initiative is also telling. “What is ironic is the launch of this project at precisely the moment when the courts are finally addressing and overwhelmingly rejecting the sort of empty legal arguments that Exxon and its corporate and political allies have been making with respect to the ongoing investigations,” Muffett said.
NAM Intervened in Youth Lawsuit, Then Withdrew
While NAM’s accountability project is new, the trade association is no stranger to litigation. “NAM has a history of trying to use the courts aggressively to oppose regulations the industry doesn’t like,” said Muffett.
Notably, NAM, along with the American Petroleum Institute (API) and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), initially joined the landmark youth climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States as an intervenor on side of the federal government, only to later back out. As the case proceeded and the court required the intervenors to explain their position on climate change under oath, NAM refused and moved to withdraw from the case in May. The court allowed all three intervenors to back out of the case.
Julia Olson, executive director of Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit spearheading the youth case, :{said at the time:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: in response to the withdrawal motion: “Over 18 months ago, NAM, like the other fossil fuel intervenors, went to great lengths to become a party defendant in this case. They claimed their members were seriously threatened by our case. Now, faced with significant legal victories by these young plaintiffs, and on the eve of having to take a position on climate science, NAM wants out of this case. We believe the court will determine that there should be consequences for wasting the court’s time.”
Phil Gregory, counsel for the youth plaintiffs, said he’s surprised no one has taken NAM to task for its hypocrisy and the conflicting views among its numerous members regarding climate change. “NAM opposed our case in favor of the fossil fuel companies, yet members of NAM’s board of directors, such as Proctor & Gamble, Merck and Pfizer are claiming in other venues that they’re committed to preventing climate change,” he said. “So they’re talking out of both sides of their mouths.”
“These companies shouldn’t be able to hide behind their trade associations and take contradictory positions.” NAM, he said, “is not only a hypocrite, but it doesn’t have the courage to take a stand under oath.”
https://www.**climatedocket**.com/2018/06/06/nyc-climate-case-republican-ag/
no lnx
NYC Climate Case Draws Now-Familiar Opposition from Republican AGs
JUNE 6, 2018
FILED UNDER: LIABILITY LITIGATION, NEW YORK CITY LAWSUIT
By Karen Savage
Fifteen Republican state attorneys general have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a motion to dismiss by five major oil companies who are being sued by New York City for climate change-related damages.
:{
}:
Led by Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, the amicus brief was filed last week and signed by AGs from Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The same group filed a nearly identical brief in April, urging a U.S. district court judge in California to dismiss climate liability suits by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland.
They filed ahead of next week’s hearing on the oil companies’ motion to dismiss. Both sides will make oral arguments to U.S. District Judge John Keenan on June 13.
New York filed suit against BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell in January, asking for billions in damages for infrastructure improvements needed to protect the city’s nearly 9 million residents from rising seas and extreme weather caused by climate change.
The 15 Republican AGs contend that climate change and its effects are “political questions not suited for resolution by any court.” They say the city’s claims fall under what’s known as the political question doctrine, which says courts should not hear cases that can be resolved administratively or through legislation.
Alleging that New York is seeking to “inject its political and policy opinions into the national regulatory scheme best handled through use of the Clean Air Act,” the AGs say the federal courts should not set nationwide energy and environmental policy. They maintain that forcing the defendants to protect a single major city would impede the ability of the five oil giants to provide energy to the rest of the country.
New York City officials declined to comment on the brief.
Lindsey de la Torre, executive director of the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), said the suits are misguided and praised the AG’s for filing the brief. MAP was formed by the National Association of Manufacturers to oppose the climate suits and state investigations.
“With continued support from the attorneys general, manufacturers can focus their efforts on solutions rather than fighting litigation that legal precedent has demonstrated will ultimately fail,” de la Torre said.
In the both the California and the New York briefs, the AGs list several state and federal policies in which the government is charged with promoting “the very energy production and marketing targeted in this case.”
“Such promotion not only demonstrates the inherently political nature of this issue, but also suggests that States and the federal government themselves could be subject to liability if Plaintiff’s claims are permitted to proceed,” the AGs wrote in the brief.
One such attempt to hold the federal government liable—Juliana v. United States—is set to go to trial on Oct. 28 in Eugene, Ore. In that case, 21 young plaintiffs are seeking to hold the federal government accountable for its role in supporting an energy system reliant on fossil fuels and are asking the court to order the U.S. government to create a science-based plan to stabilize and protect the climate for future generations.
Young plaintiffs across the country have filed similar suits on the state level.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed in support of California climate suits
Three Democratic AGs File Brief in Support of California Climate Suits
May 7, 2018
Cynthia Coffman, Republican attorney general of Colorado, with state Sen. Larry Crowder, opposes climate liability suits
Group of Republican AGs File Brief Opposing Climate Liability Suits
April 24, 2018
Exxon faces fraud charges in Massachusetts
Exxon Uses Anti-SLAPP Law to Claim Mass. Climate Suit Violates Its Rights
November 11, 2020
FILED UNDER: LIABILITY LITIGATION, NEW YORK CITY LAWSUIT
First Amendment Cannot Shield Exxon from Climate Probe, New York AG Argues
MARCH 5, 2018
FILED UNDER: EXXON CLIMATE INVESTIGATION
KS
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman :{is arguing that a recent ruling:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upholds his contention that Exxon cannot use a First Amendment claim to squelch climate fraud probes by New York and Massachusetts.
That ruling, announced on February 15, :{:{dismissed a :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{Citizens United suit:(style="background-color:#ffcc66;"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: against Schneiderman that, similar to Exxon’s suit, alleged Schneiderman’s office violated its First Amendment rights. Judges in that case wrote, “The First Amendment does not prevent anti-fraud enforcement.”
Because that decision was issued after the last round of briefings to Judge Valerie Caproni on the Exxon suit, New York Assistant Solicitor General Eric Del Pozo wrote a letter to Caproni calling her attention to it. He said the decision provides “yet more authority foreclosing Exxon’s attempt to use the First Amendment as a shield.”
Exxon claims that investigations by Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey into possible deception by the company on climate change represent an abuse of their political positions and violate the oil giant’s First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendment rights. The case was first filed by Exxon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in June 2016, but has since :{been transferred:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: to New York.
According to David Schultz, a lecturer at Yale Law School and director of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, the ruling supports “ Schneiderman’s position that of course a prosecutor has to have the ability to investigate and simply alleging the violation of First Amendment rights is not enough to shut down a criminal investigation.”
In his own letter to the judge, Exxon attorney Justin Anderson :{said:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: the attorneys general discriminated against his client by issuing requests for documents, statements made to the public, in closed-door meetings and through other communications.
Anderson said those actions demonstrated “plausible and factual allegations of the Attorney General’s intent to engage in viewpoint discrimination”.
In a January filing, attorneys for Exxon :{said:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: the attorneys general are targeting Exxon with “burdensome” and “harassing” investigations because of the company’s views on climate change.
While Exxon hopes to end the climate fraud investigations, Catherine Ross, a law professor George Washington University Law School, said more information—and likely more investigating—is needed before Exxon’s First Amendment claims can be evaluated.
“Whether they were keeping fraudulent books and saying fraudulent things is going to be quite important in whether there were any First Amendment rights that were violated,” said Ross.
Schneiderman’s office said it has found evidence Exxon potentially defrauded investors by :{using:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: two different accounting methods to project climate change-related risks.
“When they :{talk:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: about having two sets of records, that’s highly suggestive that they have something that they don’t want out there,” she said.
“So, to now come out and say ‘we’re just voicing our views on a major issue of the day and they don’t like our views’ I think is really a gross oversimplification of what might be going on here.”
Schultz too, said ExxonMobil is facing an uphill battle and will likely have a hard time persuading the judge its rights have been violated.
“Lawyers for ExxonMobil try to get around that by claiming that they have done much more than just assert a violation of rights, but that they have alleged a series of specific facts that show that this is politically motivated,” said Schultz. “But the fact that a prosecutor—who after all is a politician, who is politically elected—has certain political views or objectives isn’t the controlling question, the question is, is he fairly applying the law.”
In his letter, Del Pozo drew further parallels with the recent decision, saying that Citizens United, like Exxon, attempted to compare its “plight to that of the organization under state investigation in NAACP V. State of Alabama ex rel. Patterson.”
In Patterson, a civil rights-era case, the Supreme Court :{ruled:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:that the release of an NAACP membership rosterwould violate the due process rights of its membership as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Exxon cited the Patterson case in :{previous:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: filings to bolster its allegations that Healey and Schneiderman are abusing their subpoena powers and violating its First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Eleven Republican attorneys general :{cited:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: the case in a brief in support of Exxon.
The Second Circuit :{said:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: it had “no problem” recognizing that the allegations described by Citizens United were “a far cry from the clear and present danger that white supremacist vigilantes and their abettors in the Alabama state government presented to members of the NAACP in the 1950s.”
Exxon could find itself in a similarly unsympathetic position.
“I find it very difficult to imagine a scenario in which Exxon could claim that it resembled the members of the NAACP in that case, whose lives were at stake,” said Ross.
“We’re talking Klan, we’re talking murdering civil rights workers, shooting them and dumping them in waterways. Exxon is not in that position,” she said. “That is not the kind of cover most individuals can claim and certainly not most major international corporations.”
FILED UNDER: EXXON CLIMATE INVESTIGATION
ref CU
https://campaignlegal.org/document/citizens-united-v-schneiderman-us-court-appeals-second-circuit-decision
Citizens United v. Schneiderman: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Decision
DATE
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
CASE
CITIZENS UNITED V. SCHNEIDERMAN
COURT LEVEL
SECOND CIRCUIT
On February 15, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld that charitable organizations' first amendment rights are not violated by being required to disclose donor information and reversed the Court's ruling that the claim was not ripe. [download link]
ref 2 raga 404 paxton
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/196.1_Proposed_Amici_Curiae_Brief.pdf
.... Moreover, immediately before the March 29, 2016 AGs United for Clean
Power press conference, “Mr. [Matthew] Pawa, an attorney and climate change
activist, and Mr. [Peter] Frumhoff, a climate change activist and director of science
and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, presented to the attorneys general.”
Id. at 7.
Moreover, in “2012, Mr. Pawa presented at a workshop organized by Mr.
Frumhoff which discussed, among other things related to climate change, ‘the
viability of diverse strategies, including the legal merits of targeting carbon producers
(as opposed to carbon emitters) for U.S.-focused climate mitigation’ and ‘strategies to
win access to internal documents’ of fossil fuel companies.” Id. The draft agenda of
Defendants’ meeting with Messrs. Pawa and Frumhoff “stated that the meeting
would include presentations on the ‘imperative of taking action now on climate
change,’ presented by Mr. Frumhoff, and ‘climate change litigation,’ presented by Mr.
Pawa.” Id. at 8.
To conceal the coordinated nature of Defendants’ intended censorship, “Mr.
Pawa emailed the Office of the New York Attorney General to ask how he should
respond if asked by a reporter from The Wall Street Journal whether he attended the
closed door meeting with the attorneys general.The Office of the New York Attorney
General responded by instructing Mr. Pawa ‘to not confirm that you attended or
otherwise discuss the event.’” Id. These actions are the hallmark of an organized
campaign to engage in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and chill speech.
2. Defendants are abusing their power.
Massachusetts and New York are abusing the power reserved to them under
the U.S. Constitution, and under their own laws governing the administration and
use of that power. The Fourth Amendment limits the scope of administrative
subpoenas. See Okla. Press Publ’g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 208–11 (1946). Where
subpoenaed materials may be protected by the First Amendment, the requirements
Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 196-1 Filed 04/20/17 Page 15 of 27
9
of the Fourth Amendment are applied with “scrupulous exactitude.” Stanford v.
Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 485 (1965).
As such, so-called “fishing expeditions,” like this one,
are proscribed and “[i]t is contrary to the first principles of justice to allow a search
through all the respondents’ records, relevant or irrelevant, in the hope that
something will turn up.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Am. Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298, 306
(1924).
Government abuse of subpoena power runs afoul of the First Amendment. “The
Supreme Court has long recognized that compelled disclosure of political affiliations
and activities can impose just as substantial a burden on First Amendment rights as
can direct regulation.” AFL-CIO v. FEC, 333 F.3d 168, 175 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64–68 (1976) (disclosure of campaign contributions);
NAACP v. Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462–63 (1958) (disclosure of
membership lists)).
Thus, the government must have a compelling interest for the
disclosure of such information from private parties. Local 1814, Int’l Longshoremen’s
Ass’n v. Waterfront Comm’n of N.Y. Harbor, 667 F.2d 267, 271 (2d Cir. 1981) (citing
cases). A First Amendment privilege against disclosures exists where such “will
result in (1) harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new
members, or (2) other consequences which objectively suggest an impact on, or
‘chilling’ of, the members’ associational rights.”Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d
1147, 1160 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).
For example, subpoenas seeking investigative notes as well as the names of
contacts have been held to be an invalid chilling of the free exercise of political speech
and association under the First Amendment. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d
896, 917 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding “invalid” under First Amendment “subpoenas
demanding that [a] paper . . .disclose its reporters’ notes and reveal information
about anyone who visited the [Phoenix] New Times’s website” because subpoenas
would “chill speech”); Local 1814, 667 F.2d at 272 (holding disclosure of contributors
Case 1:17-cv-02301-VEC Document 196-1 Filed 04/20/17 Page 16 of 27
10
would chill speech); see also Pebble Ltd. P’ship v. EPA, 310 F.R.D. 575, 582 (D. Alaska
2015) (subpoenas are invalid when they have “the tendency to chill the free exercise
of political speech and association which is protected by the First Amendment”).
Defendants’ tactics—seeking over 40 years of documents—exceed their lawful
powers
...Politicized investigations undermine public confidence.
The press conference of the “AG’s United for Clean Power” demonstrates that
Massachusetts and New York commenced their investigations precisely for the
reasons the First Amendment forbids.16
“It is one thing to use the legal system to
pursue public policy outcomes; but it is quite another to use prosecutorial weapons to
intimidate critics, silence free speech, or chill the robust exchange of ideas.”17
Allowing law enforcement to violate constitutional rights is to “violate the
sacred trust of the people.” United States v. Costa, 356 F. Supp. 606, 609 (D.D.C.
1973). It undermines “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects, and would obliterate one of the most fundamental distinctions
between our form of government, where officers are under the law, and the policestate where they are the law.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 17 (1948)
(emphasis added).
Regrettably, history is embroiled with the exercise of law enforcement soiled
with political ends rather than legal ones. Massachusetts and New York now repeat
that unfortunate history. That the statements and workings of the “AG’s United for
Clean Power” are one-sided, and target only certain participants in the climate
change debate, speaks loudly enough....
18
m batasch daily caller
...
Respectfully submitted this the 19th day of April, 2017,
JEFF LANDRY
Attorney General of Louisiana
ALAN WILSON
Attorney General of South Carolina
STEVE MARSHALL
Attorney General of Alabama
BILL SCHUETTE
Attorney General of Michigan
MARK BRNOVICH
Attorney General of Arizona
BRAD SCHIMEL
Attorney General of Wisconsin
DOUG PETERSON
Attorney General of Nebraska
MIKE HUNTER
Attorney General ofOklahoma
SEAN REYES
Attorney General of Utah
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General of Arkansas
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General
BRANTLEY D. STARR
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General
MICHAEL C. TOTH
Special Counsel to the First Assistant
Attorney General
AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS**
Associate Deputy Attorney General
/s/ Andrew D. Leonie
ANDREW D. LEONIE*
Associate Deputy Attorney General
Texas Bar No. 12216500
andrew.leonie@oag.texas.gov
DAVID J. HACKER**
Senior Counsel
JOEL STONEDALE
Counsel
Office of Special Litigation
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
P.O. Box 12548, Mail Code 009
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Tel: 512-936-1414
Fax: 512-936-0545
cites idso, matt ridley...