Trump Judge Spanks Ron DeSantis for Retaliating Against a Democratic Rival

BY MARK JOSEPH STERN

JAN 11, 20245:41 PM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/trump-judge-spanks-ron-desantis-democrat.html

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis faced a sharp, surprising rebuke from a conservative appeals court on Wednesday, which dealt him a major setback in his quest to banish state prosecutor Andrew Warren from office. In fact, “setback” may be too mild a term: DeSantis got smoked at the court, which effectively accused him of abusing his office to punish Warren on the basis of protected speech. Most surprisingly, the governor’s harshest critic was Judge Kevin Newsom, a staunchly conservative Donald Trump appointee who went out of his way to charge DeSantis with an unconstitutional assault on “representative democracy.”

DeSantis, a Republican, suspended Warren, a twice-elected Democrat serving as state attorney near Tampa, from office in August 2022. Florida’s constitution permits the governor to suspend elected prosecutors only for specific reasons, like “neglect of duty” or “malfeasance.” So DeSantis issued an executive order claiming that he had dismissed the prosecutor for refusing to enforce criminal laws, including Florida’s bans on abortion and transgender health care. Warren responded with a federal lawsuit alleging that DeSantis had, in reality, targeted him because he had criticized the state bans, violating his First Amendment right to speak on a matter of public concern. At the time, the right-wing press panned his suit; National Review’s Dan McLaughlin, for instance, condemned it as “bogus,” “a joke” that “no responsible jurist” could support.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, a Bill Clinton appointee, largely sided with Warren on the facts: The judge found that DeSantis directed his aides to find a “reform” prosecutor for him to suspend as a political statement; that those aides decided Warren would be a high-profile target based on his outspoken opposition to DeSantis’ agenda; and that they then crafted a pretext to justify Warren’s ouster. (Independent reporting later confirmed this account.) Hinkle acknowledged that DeSantis retaliated against Warren for his protected speech, a violation of the First Amendment. But he found that DeSantis had developed sufficient pretext to suspend the prosecutor anyway by zeroing in on his alleged refusal to enforce abortion restrictions.

It didn’t matter, Hinkle held, that Warren had denounced other laws trumpeted by DeSantis, including restrictions on transgender health care, voting rights, and free assembly—or that the evidence showed that these denunciations formed the real basis of the governor’s action. Because the governor had covered his tracks with pretext, Warren had no recourse.

Warren then took his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, where he seemed to have slim odds of success. The 11th Circuit, now stacked with Trump appointees, has approved several of the Republican policies that Warren lambasted. The prosecutor’s appeal landed before Newsom, the Trump appointee, along with Judge Anne C. Conway (a George H.W. Bush appointee) and Judge Jill Pryor (a Barack Obama appointee). After losing before the liberal Judge Hinkle, Warren appeared unlikely to prevail before a panel with a majority of Republican appointees. Would the court agree with National Review that his lawsuit was a joke?

It would not. On Wednesday, Warren won—emphatically and unanimously. Pryor’s opinion for the court meticulously detailed the monthslong scheme hatched by DeSantis and his operatives to suspend Warren, the damning details laid bare by discovery. The judge explained how these men carefully covered up their tunnel-vision focus on the prosecutor’s speech with pretextual concerns about his policies. Pryor even noted that the governor lied on Tucker Carlson’s show by asserting that his office “reviewed all state attorneys” before targeting Warren, which was flatly untrue.

>>20234770

Key to the court’s decision was the fact that Warren made his controversial statements as a “private citizen,” and that they had “no effect on the office’s functions.” His staff went on prosecuting criminal conduct; at no point did Warren direct them not to prosecute crimes relating to abortion or transgender care. Hinkle, the court explained, misunderstood Warren’s position on abortion rights; the prosecutor had expressed his personal opposition to treating abortion as a crime, but never enshrined this opinion as official policy. In the end, the court sent the case back down to Hinkle with the strong suggestion that he should find in Warren’s favor.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis faced a sharp, surprising rebuke from a conservative appeals court on Wednesday, which dealt him a major setback in his quest to banish state prosecutor Andrew Warren from office. In fact, “setback” may be too mild a term: DeSantis got smoked at the court, which effectively accused him of abusing his office to punish Warren on the basis of protected speech. Most surprisingly, the governor’s harshest critic was Judge Kevin Newsom, a staunchly conservative Donald Trump appointee who went out of his way to charge DeSantis with an unconstitutional assault on “representative democracy.”

DeSantis, a Republican, suspended Warren, a twice-elected Democrat serving as state attorney near Tampa, from office in August 2022. Florida’s constitution permits the governor to suspend elected prosecutors only for specific reasons, like “neglect of duty” or “malfeasance.” So DeSantis issued an executive order claiming that he had dismissed the prosecutor for refusing to enforce criminal laws, including Florida’s bans on abortion and transgender health care. Warren responded with a federal lawsuit alleging that DeSantis had, in reality, targeted him because he had criticized the state bans, violating his First Amendment right to speak on a matter of public concern. At the time, the right-wing press panned his suit; National Review’s Dan McLaughlin, for instance, condemned it as “bogus,” “a joke” that “no responsible jurist” could support.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, a Bill Clinton appointee, largely sided with Warren on the facts: The judge found that DeSantis directed his aides to find a “reform” prosecutor for him to suspend as a political statement; that those aides decided Warren would be a high-profile target based on his outspoken opposition to DeSantis’ agenda; and that they then crafted a pretext to justify Warren’s ouster. (Independent reporting later confirmed this account.) Hinkle acknowledged that DeSantis retaliated against Warren for his protected speech, a violation of the First Amendment. But he found that DeSantis had developed sufficient pretext to suspend the prosecutor anyway by zeroing in on his alleged refusal to enforce abortion restrictions.

It didn’t matter, Hinkle held, that Warren had denounced other laws trumpeted by DeSantis, including restrictions on transgender health care, voting rights, and free assembly—or that the evidence showed that these denunciations formed the real basis of the governor’s action. Because the governor had covered his tracks with pretext, Warren had no recourse.

Warren then took his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, where he seemed to have slim odds of success. The 11th Circuit, now stacked with Trump appointees, has approved several of the Republican policies that Warren lambasted. The prosecutor’s appeal landed before Newsom, the Trump appointee, along with Judge Anne C. Conway (a George H.W. Bush appointee) and Judge Jill Pryor (a Barack Obama appointee). After losing before the liberal Judge Hinkle, Warren appeared unlikely to prevail before a panel with a majority of Republican appointees. Would the court agree with National Review that his lawsuit was a joke?

>>20234770

It would not. On Wednesday, Warren won—emphatically and unanimously. Pryor’s opinion for the court meticulously detailed the monthslong scheme hatched by DeSantis and his operatives to suspend Warren, the damning details laid bare by discovery. The judge explained how these men carefully covered up their tunnel-vision focus on the prosecutor’s speech with pretextual concerns about his policies. Pryor even noted that the governor lied on Tucker Carlson’s show by asserting that his office “reviewed all state attorneys” before targeting Warren, which was flatly untrue.

Key to the court’s decision was the fact that Warren made his controversial statements as a “private citizen,” and that they had “no effect on the office’s functions.” His staff went on prosecuting criminal conduct; at no point did Warren direct them not to prosecute crimes relating to abortion or transgender care. Hinkle, the court explained, misunderstood Warren’s position on abortion rights; the prosecutor had expressed his personal opposition to treating abortion as a crime, but never enshrined this opinion as official policy. In the end, the court sent the case back down to Hinkle with the strong suggestion that he should find in Warren’s favor.

Perhaps the most notable aspect of this decision is that Newsom, a Federalist Society favorite, signed it in full, and wrote a concurrence that was even more cutting toward DeSantis. He began by pointing out that DeSantis boasted during a recent primary debate that he had “beat[en] George Soros” by removing the “radical” Warren, a not-so-subtle indication that the governor’s real beef lay with the prosecutor’s political affiliations and expression. The judge then quoted the Supreme Court’s admonition that “the role that elected officials play in our society makes it all the more imperative that they be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance.”

“Warren wasn’t just an elected official,” Newsom wrote, “he was also a once and likely future candidate for office.” And there is “practically universal agreement” that the First Amendment’s “major purpose” was “to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs,” including “discussions of candidates.” Wielding the power of government to censor a political rival cuts “to the core of our representative democracy.” It runs afoul of the principle that elected officials have a sweeping right “to express their views on salient political issues.” And “whatever one thinks of Warren’s particular views about abortion, he is no less entitled to that protection.”

In Newsom’s telling—the correct one, according to undisputed evidence in the record—DeSantis abused his office in a manner most repugnant to the Constitution. He overrode the preferences of Warren’s constituents on the basis of his own desire to squelch the rise of a political rival from the opposing party. His hostility toward Warren lay in the prosecutor’s free expression of ideas that the governor disliked. By ousting him, DeSantis punished an elected official for participating in free and open debate, undermining one of the Constitution’s most fundamental guarantees of democratic self-governance.

Although the bulk of Newsom’s votes will continue to disappoint progressives, it’s encouraging to see a conservative judge try to apply real law rather than audition for the Supreme Court by pushing radical and trollish right-wing views. In truth, Newsom probably blew his chances on a promotion when he sided with social media companies in their fight against Florida laws forbidding content moderation. (His well-reasoned opinion is now under review at the Supreme Court, which will probably affirm.) The judge’s repeated departures from the conservative legal movement’s dogma likely render him insufficiently extreme to be a SCOTUS contender under the next Republican president. The GOP now seeks from its judicial nominees an absolute allegiance to the party’s ideological and political projects. Newsom has flunked that litmus test. Today, at least, the people of Florida are far better off for it.

>>20234770

>DeSantis got smoked at the court, which effectively accused him of abusing his office to punish Warren on the basis of protected speech. Most surprisingly, the governor’s harshest critic was Judge Kevin Newsom, a staunchly conservative Donald Trump appointee who went out of his way to charge DeSantis with an unconstitutional assault on “representative democracy.”

>>20234777

>In Newsom’s telling—the correct one, according to undisputed evidence in the record—DeSantis abused his office in a manner most repugnant to the Constitution. He overrode the preferences of Warren’s constituents on the basis of his own desire to squelch the rise of a political rival from the opposing party. His hostility toward Warren lay in the prosecutor’s free expression of ideas that the governor disliked. By ousting him, DeSantis punished an elected official for participating in free and open debate, undermining one of the Constitution’s most fundamental guarantees of democratic self-governance.

Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens

>>20234645

>Who gives a fuck what Rand Paul has to say

>>20234636

He had no problem being one of the 96 Senators that confirmed her as UN Ambassador. He can take a seat.

>>20234691

It's designed to get your information. Hopefully nobody was stupid enough to enter their info.

>>20235401

More at the bottom

"Sign up for text updates! By participating, you agree to the terms & privacy policy for recurring autodialed campaign & donation messages from Rand Paul to the phone number you provide. No consent required to buy. Msg&data rates may apply.

PAID FOR BY RAND PAUL FOR US SENATE"