Bragg’s Lawsuit in Trump Case Pits State Against Federal Authority
WASHINGTON — The lawsuit Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed against the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Monday is setting off a power struggle over states’ rights.
Bragg said in his lawsuit he is trying to prevent political interference in his case against Donald Trump. The former president is accused of filing false business reports to cover up hush money paid to a porn star.
Trump pleaded not guilty last week to 34 criminal charges.
Bragg filed the lawsuit in response to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, subpoenaing a former Manhattan senior prosecutor and his associates. Jordan is seeking evidence Bragg is pursuing a political agenda against Trump under the guise of a local prosecution.
Bragg seeks a court order to block the testimony before Congress of his current and former colleagues. The congressional hearing is scheduled for April 20.
He claims authority under the discretion the Constitution grants to states to prosecute criminals.
“In sum, Congress lacks any valid legislative purpose to engage in a free-ranging campaign of harassment in retaliation for the district attorney’s investigation and prosecution of Mr. Trump under the laws of New York,” says the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
“That campaign is a direct threat to federalism and the sovereign interests of the state of New York,” the lawsuit says. “This court should enjoin the subpoena and put an end to this constitutionally destructive fishing expedition.”
Bragg’s assertion of New York’s “sovereign interests” is rooted in 10th Amendment states’ rights. It gives each state exclusive authority over local issues.
Jordan said Tuesday that he plans to introduce legislation that would mean legal disputes involving high-level federal officials and issues could be handled only in U.S. district courts.
Jordan reacted to the lawsuit Tuesday on Fox News’ “Special Report,” saying, “They are obstructing our constitutional duty to do oversight.”
He added, “You don’t try it in some local court. This is a huge issue for the country and everyone sees it.”
U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil set a hearing for April 19 on Bragg’s petition seeking a court order against the subpoena.
The main target of the subpoena is Mark Pomerantz, a former senior prosecutor who resigned last year.
He said in his resignation letter that Trump is “guilty of numerous felony violations” for his financial filings to government regulators. Pomerantz’s resignation appeared to be at least partly a protest after Bragg told him he was not ready to file criminal charges against the former president.
A House Judiciary Committee statement explained the subpoena by saying, “Pomerantz’s public statements about the investigation strongly suggest that Bragg’s prosecution of President Trump is politically motivated.”
If Jordan’s suspicion is true that Trump is being targeted for political reasons by Bragg, who is a Democrat, the prosecutor would be engaging in “selective prosecution.”
Selective prosecution is a defense to criminal charges in which the defendants argue they should not be liable because prosecutors are discriminating against them for reasons prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
The 14th Amendment says no state may deny anyone “equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court has defined violations of the equal protection clause to include prosecutions based on race, religion, age, gender and political affiliation.
If proven, selective prosecution is a basis for getting criminal charges dismissed in court, regardless of whether the defendants committed a crime.
Trump, his attorneys and supporters argue he is being subjected to selective prosecution because of his political affiliations as a conservative Republican.
You can reach us at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter
