Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump, left, and Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, appear on stage during a campaign event in Asheboro, N.C., in August (AP Photo/Chuck Burton).
A panel of judges on a local Ohio court has not only declined to issue arrest warrants for Donald Trump and JD Vance over “eating the cats” rhetoric directed at Haitian immigrants, but also stated flatly the nonprofit group accusing the Republican ticket of political speech crimes did not establish probable cause in an affidavit that may not have been filed in “good faith.”
The en banc Clark County Municipal Court’s ruling on Friday included a majority opinion and a concurrence concluding that the Haitian Bridge Alliance, the group’s executive director Guerline Jozef, and lead attorney Subodh Chandra ran into a brick wall — the First Amendment — and were only entitled to a referral to the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, meaning prosecutors, not a court fielding a citizen affidavit, will have to decide “whether any prosecution is warranted.”
As Law&Crime has reported on the case, the Haitian Bridge Alliance reacted to Trump and Vance perpetuating the “false and dangerous narrative” through “unrelenting lies” that Haitian immigrants in the U.S. legally on a temporary basis have been “eating the cats,” dogs, and pets of people in Springfield by accusing them of several misdemeanors, later adding a felony “inducing panic” claim. In sum total, the group alleged that Trump and Vance “knew what they were doing” when they “relentlessly made false alarms, disrupted public services, and induced panic” just to “create stories” about immigrants eating pets in the lead-up to the 2024 election — even as Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) and other officials said there was “no evidence” of that.
The opinion of the court largely focused on the First Amendment and existing precedent as the key obstacle to the failed attempt at establishing probable cause.
“All of the conduct alleged in the Affidavit centers around the statements made by either Donald Trump or JD Vance. Freedom of speech is among our most precious and protected constitutional rights. It is enshrined in the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the decision said. “Indeed, the United States and Ohio Supreme Courts have recognized the importance of speech, even when it stirs people to anger.”
“Although all speech does not have absolute constitutional protection,” the court continued, “the strict scrutiny analysis of any criminalization of speech, requires thorough and extensive investigation before any charges would be pursued.”
While the opinion of the court didn’t go so far as to say the affidavit wasn’t brought in “good faith,” it did raise questions about the timing of the accusations — with the “presidential election […] less than 35 day away” and “contentiousness concerning the immigration policies of both candidates” — and said the court couldn’t “automatically presume the good faith nature of the Affidavits.”
“That is not to say that the Affiant [Jozef] does not believe what she is alleging is true, but rather, whether the conclusions the Affiant reaches — that being that Donald Trump and JD Vance’s political speech constitute the alleged crimes — could be influenced by her personal experiences, as opposed to an objective analysis of the alleged speech, the constitutional protections afforded to that speech, the alleged conduct occurring within the community, and claimed nexus between the speech and that conduct,” the en banc court added.
All told, the majority agreed with a concurrence penned by Judge Stephen Schumaker that it’s up to prosecutors to make a decision “with particular consideration to be given to the strong constitutional protections afforded to speech and political speech in particular.”
The concurrence went further in dismantling the theory of the case, first drawing a distinction between falsehoods and “proving a negative” — referring to public officials’ statements that there was “no evidence” to support the pet-eating claims.
“There is nothing in the reported statements by the officials that, on the basis of the record before the court, would justify any opinion that the statements at issue are false just that they cannot be verified as true,” Schumaker said.
From there, he pushed back on claims that JD Vance’s “create stories” remark on CNN was no different from admitting he was “just making harmful statements up” out of thin air — calling that a “significant mischaracterization of the evidence submitted to the court.”
The concurrence additionally said the affidavit did not establish probable cause when attempting to trace Trump and Vance’s statements to 33 hoax bomb threats that followed, warning of the potential implications for American law by referencing President Joe Biden’s “time to put Trump in a bullseye” remark before the attempted assassination of Trump in Pennsylvania and the congressional baseball practice shooting carried out by a Sen. Bernie Sanders supporter and campaign volunteer in 2017.
“This court strongly believes that President Biden and Senator Sanders did not cause those events,” Schumaker wrote. “The Court finds that […] probable cause DOES NOT EXIST candor is not meritorious as to the charges the Affiant is requesting to be filed against former President Trump and Senator Vance.”
Going further than the court’s majority, Schumaker said “glaring deficiencies” in the affidavit made it reasonable to conclude the case may not have been brought in “good faith.”
“The Court has pointed out what the Court believes to be glaring deficiencies in the requested charges. Counsel states ‘Further investigation is neither needed nor requested.’ The Court respectfully could not disagree more,” the concurrence sad. “The Court finds […] that this Judge ‘has reason to believe that it (the requested action) was not filed in good faith”” and “is ‘not meritorious.’”
In response to the decision, attorney Chandra said he was “disappointed” by the court’s “deeply flawed” opinions.
“It’s hard for the Bridge to believe there’s equal justice under law when Trump and Vance are afforded special treatment—even a special process—that no one else who had wreaked such havoc would enjoy,” Chandra said. “Everyone knows that if you substituted any other names for ‘Trump’ and ‘Vance’ who had inflicted such severe harm on the community with false alarms, by inducing panic, and by disrupting public services, those individuals would’ve been charged by now. Ohio law we presented shows that.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
