America First Legal (AFL) has filed a brief supporting Jeffrey Clark, a former Trump Justice Department official, against what it describes as persecution from the D.C. bar, which is attempting to strip him of his law license.
The 29-page amicus brief, obtained by The Federalist, argues that the proceedings against Clark should be dismissed. Clark's alleged misconduct involved drafting a letter regarding potential irregularities in Georgia's presidential election, which was never sent or acted upon.
Clark currently serves as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the White House.
Gene Hamilton, president of AFL, stated, "We are proud to stand beside Jeff Clark as he faces an unquestionably weaponized disciplinary process. There is no place in a free society for thought police." (Media Aflegal)
The brief contends that the D.C. Bar's actions represent an attempt to dictate the legal advice a lawyer can provide to the President of the United States, under threat of sanction. "Impeding the President’s ability to exercise core constitutional powers is the purpose of this proceeding," (Media Aflegal) it states.
AFL cites the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States, asserting that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority. The brief also references Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which allows the President to seek written opinions from senior executive officers without fear of retribution.
Ryan Giannetti, counsel for AFL, emphasized that punishing Clark for advising the President undermines both his livelihood and the presidency itself. "The Constitution requires fearless, unfiltered counsel inside the Executive Branch," (Media Aflegal) he said.
The amicus brief follows a similar submission by three former U.S. attorneys general, who criticized the bar's actions as politically motivated. They noted that ethics complaints driven by partisan animosity are detrimental to the legal profession.
The D.C. Court of Appeals is expected to make a final determination regarding Clark's law license. AFL argues that even if absolute immunity is not granted, Clark is still protected by qualified immunity due to the principles of separation of powers.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications for executive branch officials and their ability to provide candid advice remain a focal point of concern for AFL and its supporters.
Why it matters
- Legal or policy outcomes depend on hearings, rulemaking, and potential court challenges.
- AFL's support for Clark highlights concerns over perceived political motivations in legal disciplinary actions against government officials.
- The case raises significant questions about the limits of legal advice provided to the President and the implications for executive branch autonomy.
- The outcome could set a precedent affecting how legal counsel is provided within the executive branch, impacting future administrations.
What’s next
- The D.C. Court of Appeals is expected to rule on Clark's law license status in the coming weeks.
- AFL may continue to file additional briefs or support for Clark as the case progresses.
- Further public statements from AFL and legal experts are anticipated as the situation develops.