The First Amendment is no barrier to arresting Donald Trump and JD Vance over their highly-publicized comments about the alleged eating habits of Haitian communities in Springfield, Ohio, a group representing some Haitians says.
So far, that theory has not convinced a judge in the Buckeye State — but the plaintiffs are looking to leapfrog the appellate process with a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
On Friday, plaintiffs Guerline Jozef and the Haitian Bridge Alliance filed a lawsuit against a trio of judges for giving Trump and Vance “special treatment, and violating the Clark County Municipal Court Local Rules, Ohio Rules of Superintendence, and relevant statutes in the process,” according to a press release.
The 120-page filing seeks an order vacating the judicial trio’s previous panel decision that rejected the case. The complaint also asks the state’s highest court to assign the case to a new judge who has not been “tainted” by what the plaintiffs describe as the “collective, group-think, decision-making process undertaken” so far.
The underlying case here was filed under the auspices of an Ohio statute which permits citizens to file an affidavit alleging criminal offenses. This is, of course, a bit of a procedural oddity — entirely permissible under the law but against the grain of how almost all criminal charges are filed in the state, or the country for that matter.
In September, Jozef and her organization, represented by Cleveland-based attorney Subodh Chandra, sought to make hay out of the GOP ticket’s unsubstantiated claims that Haitian immigrants are “eating the cats,” dogs, and “the pets of the people” in Springfield.
The original citizen affidavit alleged a litany of offenses including disrupting public services, making false alarms, complicity, telecommunications harassment, and aggravated menacing — a combination of high-tier misdemeanors and low-tier felonies.
In late September, the group amended its complaint to accuse the 45th president and his running mate of felony inducing panic.
This filing also contained the organization’s first shot across the bow of the U.S. Constitution by likening the “eating cats” comments to the often-inapplicable “shouting fire in a crowded theater” analogy.
“Like those who falsely shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater, Trump and Vance do not color within the lines of the First Amendment,” the second filing reads. “They commit criminal acts. This was no accident. Trump’s and Vance’s criminal conduct was both directed to and likely to produce the effects seen in Springfield. Not only were bomb threats, evacuations, and chaos the likely outcomes of their actions, the results played out in real time for Trump and Vance to see.”
In early October, that argument fell flat.
In a majority opinion issued by Clark County Municipal Court Judges Valerie J. Wilt and Daniel D. Carey found the plaintiffs were, at best, entitled to a referral to the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney to decide “whether any prosecution is warranted.” Judge Stephen A. Schumaker agreed with the outcome in a concurrence.
“All of the conduct alleged in the Affidavit centers around the statements made by either Donald Trump or JD Vance,” the opinion reads. “Freedom of speech is among our most precious and protected constitutional rights. It is enshrined in the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. Indeed, the United States and Ohio Supreme Courts have recognized the importance of speech, even when it stirs people to anger.”
Now, in a procedural effort to revive the case, the plaintiffs say the judges disposed of the allegations in violation of Ohio judicial rules.
“Except for courts of appeals, no Ohio statute or rule of the Ohio Supreme Court allows for assignments to panels of judges,” Chandra wrote in the press release. “There would need to be a rule specifically authorizing assignment to a group of municipal-court judges for such an order to be proper, and no such rule exists. So Judge Wilt lacked authority to assign the matter to all the Clark County Municipal Court’s judges sitting as a purported ‘en banc’ panel.”
The plaintiffs say this arrangement disqualified all of the judges involved.
“Judges Wilt, Carey, and Schumaker each lacked judicial authority to preside over or rule on the Relators’ filings, whether individually or en banc,” the press release continues.
In other words, the immigrant rights plaintiffs say the case was improperly overseen by a triumvirate of jurists. The plaintiffs assert that no rule exists in Ohio to allow three judges to sit in judgment on any case at the district, or municipal, court level.
District court en bancs, while rare, are not unheard of.
But, the plaintiffs contend in their mandamus petition, this legal oddity in a case rife with oddities gave Trump and Vance an unfair advantage.
“[R]ather than treating the case as just another of many charged offenses to process through the preliminary procedures of Ohio’s justice system, Respondent Judges of the Clark County Municipal Court gave former President Donald Trump and Senator JD Vance special treatment, violating the Clark County Municipal Court Local Rules, Ohio Rules of Superintendence, and relevant statutes in the process,” the complaint with the state’s supreme court alleges.
The Ohio Supreme Court has not given any indication as to whether or not they will rule on the petition as of this writing.
Law&Crime reached out to Chandra for additional details on this story but no response was immediately forthcoming at the time of publication.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Note: Thank you for visiting our website! We strive to keep you informed with the latest updates based on expected timelines, although please note that we are not affiliated with any official bodies. Our team is committed to ensuring accuracy and transparency in our reporting, verifying all information before publication. We aim to bring you reliable news, and if you have any questions or concerns about our content, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!