America First Legal (AFL) has filed a brief supporting Trump 45 Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark against persecution from the corrupt D.C. bar and its weaponized attempt to strip his law license.
The 29-page amicus brief, obtained by The Federalist, lays out multiple arguments for why the proceedings against Clark, whose alleged wrongdoing consisted of drafting a letter that was “never signed, never sent, and never acted upon,” should immediately be thrown out of court.
Clark currently heads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the White House.
“We are proud to stand beside Jeff Clark as he faces an unquestionably weaponized
disciplinary process,” AFL President Gene Hamilton told The Federalist. “There is no place in a free society for thought police. And there is certainly no place in our democratic republic for a local bar to attempt to regulate the provision of legal advice to the President of the United States.”
In 2020, Clark wrote a legal opinion in a draft letter regarding potential irregularities in Georgia’s presidential election, and suggested that the state legislature take steps to investigate it. Although the letter was never sent, it was “illegally leaked,” and that is the only reason the D.C. Bar even knows about it.
Regardless of the issue with leaking, the D.C. Bar’s lawfare campaign against Clark asks the court to effectively dictate the kinds of advice a lawyer can give to his client (the president of the United States), under threat of sanction if the notoriously left-wing bar does not agree with the political outcome.
“To be clear: Impeding the President’s ability to exercise core constitutional powers is the purpose of this proceeding,” the brief states. “Political (and policy) disagreement is no excuse for discarding the separation of powers that allows the Executive Branch of our government to function.”
AFL argues that Clark is protected by absolute immunity per the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, stating, “the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.”
Further, AFL says that Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (which states that the president “may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices”) “necessarily requires that senior executive officers be empowered to offer opinions and carry out their duties without fear of later retribution.”
“Punishing a senior official like Jeffrey Clark for privately advising the President is an attack not only on his own livelihood, but on the Presidency itself,” AFL counsel Ryan Giannetti told The Federalist. “The Constitution requires fearless, unfiltered counsel inside the Executive Branch, and our system of justice requires that lawyers have the leeway to zealously advocate for their clients, regardless of the clients’ politics. We will continue to defend that principle, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. Politicized lawfare at the hands of Bar Associations nationwide is a threat to the Constitution, to the legal profession, and to our system of justice. It must be eradicated, and it starts here.”
AFL notes that even if the court did not extend absolute immunity from Trump v. United States to lesser executive officials like Clark, he is still protected by qualified immunity because of the “separation of powers principles, ‘the need to protect officials who are required to exercise their discretion[,] and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority.’”
The amicus brief comes after three former U.S. attorneys general also submitted a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals defending Clark and calling out the bar’s “political retribution,” while even citing significant differences with Clark’s underlying conclusions in the letter. The reality remains that Clark, and other similarly positioned executive officers, need to be able to deliberate without being under duress from a bar that already disagrees with their political positions, even showing deep disdain for them.
“Ethics complaints motivated by partisan animosity are unethical, un-American, and detrimental to the profession of law and the pursuit of justice to which our profession is committed,” the brief states.
“In recent years, our political culture has taken a dark turn away from persuasion and into compulsion. The political left has adopted tactics designed to intimidate opponents into silence or acquiescence,” the brief continues. “Most relevant here, organizations like the 65 Project and the Legal Accountability Center have built a cottage industry out of, as they put it, ‘creating a system of deterrence’ against lawyers willing to represent conservative causes, politicians, or organizations by filing frivolous ethics complaints without firsthand knowledge of the events complained of.”
Ultimately, the D.C. Court of Appeals will have the final say as to Clark’s law license.