This month, the Coolidge Reagan Foundation has called upon the Michigan bar to investigate and sanction Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., over her comments on Gaza and Israel. While I have been critical of Tlaib over her rhetoric and claims on the Hamas attack and later war, I believe that such sanctions would be inimical to free speech and pull the bar into political controversies.
Dan Backer, the foundation’s counsel, accused Tlaib of spreading “vile, antisemitic lies to foster hatred towards a people” and said that she should be held accountable.
Backer insists that Tlaib “clearly violated” the Michigan bar’s ethics code due to her inflammatory remarks.
The complaint alleges
“Attorney Tlaib’s false, discriminatory, and anti-Semitic comments regarding the horrific massacre and other crimes the international terrorist group Hamas ruthlessly unleashed against innocent Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, including kidnapping, rape, beheading children, burning people alive, and murdering a baby by placing him in an oven. In response to these atrocities, Attorney Tlaib made several public statements evincing deeply discriminatory, antisemitic views that call into question her character and fitness to practice law.”
What is interesting about the complaint is that it cites the fact that, on November 7, 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives publicly censured Attorney Tlaib for her statements. Censure resolutions have no inherent punitive element unless they are tied to a removal or ban from committees. However, it can be used, as here, as the basis for collateral sanctions.
The question is whether this is an appropriate basis for the bar to investigate and sanction a member. Once again, I am in accord with the Foundation in the view of Hamas as a terrorist organization. However, the bar is not the proper forum for such controversies, in my view, and the action could make it more likely that sanctions will be used in the future against other political viewpoints. I have expressed that same discomfort with the effort to disbar many Trump lawyers over their election claims absent unethical filings or unlawful actions.
The complaint points out that Tlabi said that she was “grieving” for the Palestinian losses and supported the “resistance” to what she said was Israel’s “apartheid.” The group admits that these comments are not “actionable in themselves” but cites them as evidence supporting possible sanctions.
The group also cites Tlaib’s claim that Israel intentionally bombed al-Ahli Arab Hospital. I also criticized Tlaib at the time for making this unsupported claim. However, she was not alone. The New York Times and other media outlets were making the same claim. They were also wrong to do so, but this was a common point of contention among media, governments, and advocates.
The group notes correctly that Tlaib did not remove her social posting and continued to call for an investigation by the United Nations. However, again, calling for an investigation cannot be an unethical act. She publicly stated that she wanted the investigation to confirm the culprit. The failure to remove the earlier claim can be defended as superfluous given the widespread reporting of the comment and her later public call for an investigation.
The group also cites Tlaib’s statements that Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing, “genocide,” and the massacre of civilians. Those are political statements that should not be the subject of bar investigations in my view. They are protected speech under the First Amendment.
Finally, the group cites Tlaib’s use of the slogan “from the river to the sea!” It is generally viewed as a call for the eradication of Israel. However, again, this is a political slogan and its use would be protected speech under the First Amendment.
The group cites Mich. R. Prof’l Cond. 6.5(a) requiring “A lawyer shall treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process. A lawyer shall take particular care to avoid treating such a person discourteously or disrespectfully because of the person’s race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic.” This rule would take on a dangerous meaning if political advocacy could be treated as unethical conduct because it is viewed as “discourteous.”
The group notably cites the Fieger case in Michigan, a case that I previously criticized as denying the free speech rights of attorneys. The case against controversial lawyer Geoffrey Fieger was successful, but in my view was wrong despite my disagreement with Fieger’s comments. The action was based on an incident in 1999 after the state Court of Appeals earned Fieger’s ire with a ruling that overturned a $15-million jury verdict Fieger won for a client in a medical malpractice case. Fieger took to his radio show to blast the judges with vulgarity. It was viewed as an insult to the bench and unbecoming a member of the bar.
Fieger was tied directly to the need for lawyers to act with respect to the bench and to maintain proper decorum in the discussion of such cases. Putting aside the opposition from some of us in the free speech community, it was not a broader ruling allowing sanctions for political advocacy.
The second basis for the complaint is Mich. R. Prof’l Cond. 8.4(b), which declares that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, [or] misrepresentation . . . where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.” The group notes that as a member of Congress, she has “heightened duties … beyond other citizens.”
The Foundation cites the Deutsch case. However, that case involved a threshold ruling reversing the dismissal of actions against Marvin G. Deutch and Vickey O. Howell after they were found to have committed drunk driving claims. Notably, Deutch was remanded for further proceedings under a different provision concerning criminal acts under MCR 9.104(5).
Howell was remanded under Rule 8.4. However, the emphasis was on the fact that she committed a criminal act and the remand was to allow the bar to “fully consider Howell’s recidivism and probation violation, among other aggravating and mitigating factors.” Again, the extension of such rationales to political advocacy presents serious implications for the First Amendment as well as the bar.
The fact is that lawyers often advocate for unpopular clients or causes. The majority often finds their advocacy obnoxious, discourteous, or even threatening. However, if political advocacy can be used as the basis for disbarment or sanctions, the chilling effect would be glacial.
As members of the free speech community, we often advocate for the speech rights of those with whom we disagree. I have long disagreed with Rep. Tlaib on a host of issues, including the Hamas massacre. However, this action would cross a dangerous line in the sanctioning of political speech in my view.
For that reason, I must respectfully disagree with this effort and I believe the bar should reject the call for sanctions.
Jonathan Turley, you do The New York Times a wrong. The reporters simply reported what the Gazan authorities had claimed.
After days of attempted explanations, the best appears to be that an illumination round landed in the hospital courtyard.
Reporters at one time, confirmed or verified what it was they were reporting.
Now, they just spout whatever the terrorists tell them without so much as taking a moment to even question what it is and by who is telling them.
They even will post pictures that have nothing to do with the topic.
The NYT is not much better than the National Enquirer.
Farmer4 Up There — Don’t be more of a fool than you have to be up there. The New York Times was careful to report such-and-so according to somebody-or-other.
Reporters’ stories are to answer Who-What-When-Where-Why-How.
“The reporters simply reported what the *Gazan authorities* had claimed.” (Emphasis added)
You are lying by omission.
You know, and the NYT knew, that the report came from the propaganda wing of *Hamas*. A high school cub reporter would not cite terrorists as a source.
These bar associations seem all about sanctioning for unpopular opinions instead of integrity, competency and actions specifically concerning their job qualifications and performance.
So it is ok to call for killing all the jews & wipe Israel off the map.
Similar to yelling fire in a crowded opera house.
Sometimes you amaze me with your convoluted rationalization.
Law is clear, 1st Amendment right to free speech STOPS here.
Jonathan: There is an interesting case in Florida that caught my attention–because it raises some constitutional issues. There is a guy there who was not able to celebrate Thanksgiving with his family. He is in jail in West Palm Beach. How and why?
Joh Minadeo II runs an anti-Semitic, neo Nazi group called “Goyim Defense League”. His group has joined another neo-Nazi group, “Blood Tribe”, in parading over Orlando-area freeway over passes–giving Hitler salutes, shouting “Jews get the rope” and distributing fliers supporting their cause. What got Minadeo in legal trouble is that his group frequently goes around throwing fliers from the back of a U-haul. He was arrested, charged with “littering”, convicted and sentenced to jail on Nov. 1. At trial Minadeo’s lawyer claimed his activities were protected free speech. The state attorney argued: “…the paper is not political or religious in nature, the paper contains unsubstantiated claims attacking a specific religion and are correctly classified as trash having no true political essence”. The judge agreed.
The Q is whether Minadeo’s activities are protected speech or just “littering”? Perhaps, you will want to weigh in on this case because it raises some interesting constitutional issues. What say the others on this blog?
The GDL is a hate group that does more than the accusations against Minadeo. He repeatedly broke the law. What does one do when one individual continuously violates the laws other citizens must follow? At least one foreign nation jailed him for his activities.
Minadeo is not a sympathetic character, but it is reasonable for people to defend the rights of others. Dennis questions activities of this nature, but his questions seem to arise only to protect hate groups. If Dennis were more balanced and provided the entire history of Minadeo, he might have merit. However, he doesn’t, so one can conclude he is an armchair promoter of the GDL.
Minadeo migrated to Florida from California. That turkey thought Florida would be more receptive to him. Florida doesn’t want California trash.
The GDL is a hate group that does more than what Minadeo is accused of. However, he broke the law repeatedly. What does one do when a person repeatedly breaks laws other citizens follow? He has been placed in jail in at least one foreign nation for his activities. It’s good that we have Dennis to question activities of this nature, but his questions seem to arise only to protect hate groups. If he were more balanced, he might have merit if he provided the entire history. However, he doesn’t so one can say he is an arm chair promoter of the GDL
He migrated to Florida from California. That turkey thought Florida would be more receptive to him. Florida doesn’t want California trash.
The Q is whether Minadeo’s activities are protected speech or just “littering”?
Not even close to the question.
The question ALWAYS; Does the Govt have the constitutional POWER to shut down speech?
Very easy. Cite the power.
Professor Turley has his rose-colored glasses on again. The First Amendment protections do NOT apply to incitement, threats, and fighting words. Tlaib’s words obviously are an incitement to violence, here in the United States, and worse, around the world. She should be ejected from the House and disbarred!
Dear Prof Turley,
Joe Biden could not have said it any better. And the >30% who still approve of Biden’s foreign policies must be the people on this blog and a dwindling few old democrats.
No. Rep. Tlaib should not be disbarred or censured or censored for her views on the plight of the Palestinians.
In case you missed it, Biden’s Thanksgiving message was we must end all this “rancor”, dog face pony soldier.
If we are to avoid the return of Trump, his MAGA minions and the end of America and the United States of Israel. Otoh, Joe Biden will pee down your back and tell you it’s raining. Trump v Biden is a symbiotic relationship.
I do believe all high-elected U.S. officials who wear duel flag-pins and drape themselves in foreign flags are required to file notice under FARA – Foreign Agent Registration Act – by definition.
>”Ahli Arab Hospital.”
If the WaPo et al geo-located video of the missile strike is correct, it was most likely a U.S. made IDF munition.
Don’t believe Joe Biden saw gruesome photos of 40 beheaded babies. Either.
Of course, the most outlandish and preposterous allegation is that ‘Hamas’, or the Palestinian people, pose the same threat to the Jewish people as the Holocaust of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. ..
*Halftime show statistics: “Jewish hate is up 388%” ~ NBC
Jonathan: I agree. There is no basis to sanction Rep. Tlaib by the Michigan bar. That said, you were not the only one to wish your supporters yesterday a “Happy Thanksgiving”. DJT posted the same greeting but he added–and “all the other Radical Left Lunatics, Communists, Marxists, Democrats and RINOS, who are seriously looking to DESTROY OUR COUNTRY”. Thankfully, as a “Vegan” I was not included in DJT frequent epithets. But DJT is quite serious. He has plans if re-elected next year. He intends to prosecute all his perceived “enemies” and purge them from any position in his new administration. All the Garlands, Jack Smiths and anyone in the DOJ who is part of the team of lawyers prosecuting him will, in turn, be prosecuted. Not a good sign for the “rule of law” in a new DJT administration. It’s a prescription for a one man authoritarian dictatorship!
Other than your first two sentences, what does the rest of your comment have to do with the subject of the post?
Please provide a link to your blog so we can all follow your thoughts on subjects that are important to you. Thanks.
He doesn’t have a blog. He’s a freebooting squatter here because he’s too lazy or dumb to create his own. He writes what the voices in his head tell him to write.
My point exactly.
Elections have consequences. Independent Bob.
While I’m certainly no fan of Rashida Tlaib, I’m with you on this one Jonathan. That said however, maybe Conor McGregor has a point here ?
Skyraider1717,
I got the reference and thank you for the chuckle!
Wouldn’t it greatly benefit our intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies to uphold legal First Amendment speech? Why do any of these agencies support censorship?
Aren’t we safer letting people speak so we can monitor them, instead of them going silent and underground?
Are we really safer if hate groups go dark and we don’t know what they are up to? Or of intelligence agencies don’t understand their point of view.
Also never forget, our agency personnel swear supreme loyalty to uphold the U.S. Constitution – which includes not infringing upon legal First Amendment activity – this is their employment contract and limits of their authority!
I fully support her 1stA right to speak her mind and let everyone know where she stands on any given topic.
What about that oath that they take to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”? Is she keeping to that oath? And what can be done about it? Isn’t “false swearing” a crime?
So, Turley rightly describes the sewer drain down which we are swirling to total societal collapse. Obama and his puppet masters must be truly enjoying our flailing attempts to control the chaos that ensues when all form of cultural cohesion is being purposefully torn away. How do we save our culture and constitution while attempting to clean out the infestation amoung us. Turn to history and then you will see which 2 paths are available going forward. While we laud the charge of the Winged Hussars and the victory of the battle of Lepanto, we have failed through our diasterous immigration policies to stem the invasion.
I agree; however, I seriously doubt that she or her ilk would not offer you or me the same consideration
I am on Turley’s side. Freedom of speech should prevail. Having that said, Tlaib does not belong in the HR. She does not represent her district but the Palestinians. She is a perfect example of the problem caused by the lack of integration of immigrants, and of immigrants who do not come here because they prefer our values and want to be part of the American experience. I have come to the conclusion that we need a 10-year moratorium on immigration.
The melting pot is gone, now we have multiculturalism. Independent Bob.
Resist the urge to ban speech. Amplify it instead. Let these people indict themselves. Loudly speak out in opposition.
Censorship is the coward’s way out. It’s for those who feel they don’t have a strong enough argument to counter what’s said.
Hear, hear!
It shouldn’t be illegal to make an a$$ out of yourself. Independent Bob.
I’m not sure on this one. Yes I support strongly the 1st amendment but an attorney, like a physician, attains a higher profile in society and a higher standard to uphold. We should be the people seen to uphold the constitution and rational thought, who protect our client’s legal rights and our patient’s medical rights and privacy. When you attain a higher office and standing in our society, people will expect a higher standard of performance and conduct. We are supposed to be the people that set many standards of action and behavior and society does look to us to lead by example and our life. Too whom much has been given , much is expected. It grieves me when a doctor or lawyer descends from that level and acts like a dog. If the leaders of a society act like mad dogs then the rest of society starts to see that it’s ok to act like a mad dog too. Civilization is a fragile construction and its success is based on people’s willingness to support it. If standards of behavior fall to chaos then the society follows. The essence of leadership is to show the way with strength and clarity and people will follow. Act like you’re in a mob and you will be.
Liberty is great but too much liberty and license is chaos. Society and civilization rests as much on unwritten rules as it does on the written law and government.
Well said GEB.
Yes…we should take care in limiting free speech, but when a person’s profile is as Tlaib’s, where such person contributes to rioting, we might have passed the delimiter.
The way to get rid of Tlaib, Omar and the rest of the squad is by voting them out. I hope they face primary challenges and effective Republican opponents (though the latter may be a contradiction in terms).
It is an unwinnable district for Republicans: the west side of Detroit, and bordering suburbs. Biden got 66% of the vote in 2020.
That should speak volumes about the people in her district. It also explains why Michigan is losing population.
Daniel,
I agree with what you are saying, but as Edwardmahl points out, the demographic does not favor a Republican challenger.
But maybe in the primaries…..
Daniel, Edward, Upstate: I assume Rashida Tlaib would not have been elected to Congress were she not Palestinian. She was elected in a pocket outside Detroit that was/is primarily Palestinian/Arabic. I understand that this is what our government provides: election of persons who ostensibly best represent the interests of voters in a given district.
Unfortunately, this often results in elections of persons PRIMARILY because they share race or ethnicity with voters, -and not because of their particular professional worthiness.
This is how I feel about Tlaib. A disgrace to public life and profession. But I agree with the good professor that the specific citations and references do not address or correlate with her particularly divisive faults/indiscretions.
(BTW, I was in a Michigan court once, on a different matter, when Geoffrey Fieger’s case came up before mine. Tall, commanding in presence, and very very theatrical/histrionic. I can see how he, as a plaintiff’s attorney, swayed juries.)
Hope the three of you had nice Thanksgivings. I am thankful for your good comments.
To be fair to Tlaib, she previously represented the east side of Detroit, where there is a very small Muslim or Arab-American population.
Ah, but respectfully, you left out a few important details.
After failing to get elected to MI Congress in 2014, she waited… and then strategically ran UNOPPOSED in MI’s heavily-Democrat Congressional district vacated by retiring John Conyers. (The old 13th District?, before reorganization/redistricting for the 2022 election)
Again, strategically, in 2022, she moved to run in the newly-drawn heavy-Democratic 12th District, vacated by Dingells, who was re-drawn into another district (6th?).
At present:
“Tlaib’s [12th] district, which is just to the west of Detroit proper, is mostly white. On paper, that is. The federal government arbitrarily defines the category ‘white’ as including people with origins in Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa, so it’s harder to parse out the actual demographics of the district…”
“In reality, Tlaib’s district is heavily populated by Middle Eastern immigrants… In Dearborn, one of the main cities in the district, Arab-Americans constitute nearly 55 percent of the population. https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2023/09/26/census-data-shows-arab-american-population-in-dearborn-now-makes-up-majority-of-people-living-there/
https://spectator.org/to-understand-rashida-tlaib-look-at-her-district/
p.s. THIS (the 12th district, 2022) election of Tlaib is what I was referring to. For more precise wording, I could change one word in my sentence, “She was elected in a pocket…” to “She was elected by a pocket…”) Is that more to your satisfaction?
My point was that she was able to win the Demo nomination, and later the general election, in a district
that was heavily Africa-American. She must have an appeal to Democrats who do come from the Middle East.
Oops – do “not” come from the Middle East.
Neither Reagan nor Coolidge would have approved of this abuse of the legal system. But it may be an educational experience for her: she is getting a small taste of what Trump is going through.
She is, but she knew…. we have to use our standards, not her’s….
Here we go again. Tlaib’s comments are repugnant, but I’m glad to know where she stands. If they go after her on these disgusting thoughts and beliefs, the system will not long refrain from going after others they disagree with, like conservatives or evangelical Christians who want to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ on the street corners. Let her thoughts be out there for all to see and make up their own minds.