Appeals court rules Missouri attorney general did not violate Sunshine Law
Democratic candidate for Missouri Attorney General Elad Gross after filing in February 2024. (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).
The Attorney General's Office did not violate the Missouri Sunshine Law when it refused to turn over records showing how it fulfilled a request, the Western District Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
In a split decision, a three-judge panel ruled that the office reasonably concluded the records being sought by St. Louis attorney Elad Gross were exempt from disclosure because of his threatened litigation.
Gross was seeking records about then-Attorney General Eric Schmitt's participation in a U.S. Supreme Court case seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the Republican Attorneys General Association's robocall efforts encouraging 'patriots' to participate in a march that ended on Jan. 6, 2021, with a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Eric Schmitt denies involvement in call for Trump supporters to march on U.S. Capitol
'This case presents a unique question for which we have found no direct precedent – application of (Sunshine Law exemptions) to records created by a public governmental body in responding to a previous Sunshine Request where the threatened litigation concerns the public governmental body's handling of that previous records request,' Judge Edward Ardini wrote in the 2-1 decision.
The Sunshine Law allows government agencies to close records about 'legal actions, causes of action or litigation.' That exception doesn't allow a record that should be open to be closed just because it might become evidence in a court case, Ardini wrote, but it does allow records created in contemplation of possible litigation to be closed.
'The nature of these records rendered them not merely discoverable or admissible in an enforcement action over the AGO's compliance with the Sunshine Law concerning its response to Gross's first request but go to the very core of such an action by disclosing the precise means utilized by the AGO to comply with its legal responsibilities,' Ardini wrote.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Alok Ahuja wrote that there was no prospective or actual litigation when the records were created, so they must be open.
An 'open ended application' of the litigation exemption which 'authorizes the closure of any records which may 'go to the very core of' litigation threatened after the records' creation, would result in precisely the sort of 'extreme' consequences of which (an earlier precedent) warned,' Ahuja wrote.
Since the lawsuit was filed in 2021, Schmitt has been elected to the U.S. Senate and replaced by Andrew Bailey, who defeated Gross, the Democratic nominee for attorney general, last year.
In an email to The Independent, Gross said he would appeal the decision.
'Attorney General Bailey is wrong to prevent taxpayers from seeing what our government is doing with our money,' Gross said. 'We need transparency in our government.'
Gross has sued over Sunshine Law questions in the past, losing at the trial court level before gaining a win on appeal.
In 2021, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled, in a case brought by Gross, that government agencies cannot charge for time attorneys spend reviewing public records are requested under the Sunshine Law.
In the case decided Tuesday, Gross lost a summary judgment decision in Cole County. He raised 12 points in the appeal.
Along with arguing the trial court made a mistake by allowing the attorney general's office to close some records, Gross sought to overturn the decision by claiming Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green made other errors.
Gross argued Green wrongly terminated the discovery process, limited his ability to question staff witnesses in person, and allowed the attorney general's office to move the date promised for the delivery of records.
The decision was unanimous except for Ahuja's dissent related to the question of whether the documents were related to litigation.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 minutes ago
US governors are divided along party lines about military troops deployed to protests
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump's military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned. The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies. In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump's move escalated the situation — and for political gain. All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines 'an alarming abuse of power' that "undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues. The governors' responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally? Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations. 'There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance," Shields said. And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, ' we'll see you in court ' over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a 'straight-up dictator," but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: 'I'm not going to criticize him directly much at all." Apart from their joint statement, some of the highest-profile Democratic governors have not talked publicly about the situation in California. When asked, on Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's office pointed to a Sunday social media post about the joint statement. Whitmer didn't respond. The office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is set to testify before Congress on Thursday about his state laws protecting people who are in the country without legal status, reiterated in a statement that he stands with Newsom. The office said 'local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. 'He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California," Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions. Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. 'Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader,' Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, DeSantis said the gesture was a typical offer of mutual aid during a crisis — and was dismissive of the reasons it was turned down. 'The way to put the fire out is to make sure you have law and order,' he said. Protests against immigration enforcement raids have sprung up in other cities — and a series of 'No Kings' demonstrations are planned for the weekend — with governors preparing to respond. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said he has spoken with his public safety commissioner to make sure state and local police work together. 'I don't want to give the president any pretext to think he can come into Connecticut and militarize the situation. That just makes the situation worse,' said Lamont, who called Trump "a little eager to send federal troops and militarize the situation in Los Angeles.' It is unclear how many Texas National Guard members will be deployed or how many cities asked for assistance. In Austin, where police used chemical irritants to disperse several hundred protesters on Monday, the mayor's office said the National Guard was not requested. San Antonio officials also said they didn't request the Guard. Florida's DeSantis said law enforcement in his state is preparing 'The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you,' DeSantis said Tuesday. 'And we will make an example of you, you can guarantee it.' ___ Associated Press reporters Nadia Lathan and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan; Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut; Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago; contributed.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump and the 'rhetoric of emergency'
Tariffs, immigration, energy: In all these areas, Donald Trump has granted himself exceptional and broad presidential powers by declaring "emergency" situations that his critics insist do not exist. "In the United States, there is no tradition of emergency powers (granted to the president) under the Constitution," New York University professor Noah Rosenblum told AFP. But various laws allow the commander-in-chief's powers to be expanded on an exceptional -- and usually temporary -- basis. Historically such emergency powers have been invoked to deal with natural disasters, to deploy responders or troops, and to unlock critical funding. "But that, of course, is not how Donald Trump is using it," Rosenblum said. Since returning to the White House on January 20, the Republican president has repeatedly invoked states of emergency in a variety of areas -- eight times in all, according to National Public Radio -- thus green-lighting swift and forceful intervention on his administration's part. They have had little to do with hurricanes, floods or earthquakes. On his first day in office, Trump declared a "national energy emergency" in the United States -- the world's leading oil producer. By early April, frustrated by the trade deficits the United States had with many countries, including some imbalances going back decades, Trump declared a national emergency, among other reasons, "to increase our competitive edge," the White House said. The result? Tariffs slapped on adversaries and allies alike. The flow of migrants arriving from Mexico has prompted Trump to declare a state of emergency at the US southern border, and he apparently feels empowered to respond with massive import duties, or forced deportations of undocumented migrants. - 'Aspiring autocrat' - Now, Trump has sent the US military into Los Angeles to quell protests, invoking a seldom-used law that allows the president to deploy National Guard units if there is a "rebellion or danger of rebellion." The move countered the wishes of local authorities and California Governor Gavin Newsom, who accused Trump of a "dictatorial" drift. "The president is simply announcing emergencies when there aren't any," said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri, noting how local police have said they are capable of handling clashes with protesters opposed to raids by immigration agents. "All of these grants of potential emergency powers really don't account for the election of a president like Mr. Trump, who is not entirely rational, who is not dedicated to the rule of law, who is, in fact, an aspiring autocrat who is looking... to exercise extraordinary power," Bowman told AFP. Trump is not the first US leader to invoke exceptional circumstances to justify such moves, even if he does so in a way without precedent. His Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, for example, decided to forgive student debt given the "emergency" created by the Covid pandemic. The conservative-leaning Supreme Court was not convinced, however, and blocked the plan. - Eisenhower and Nixon - In Trump's case, will the courts, which have been flooded by lawsuits, affirm the legality of actions taken in the name of imminent peril? The tendency of judges "in these kinds of things is to defer pretty heavily to the president," Bowman said. On Thursday, a California court will consider a request by Governor Newsom to suspend Trump's troop deployment. In a filing to the court, the administration said Trump's judgment has historical precedent. Courts did not interfere when President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to protect school desegregation or when Richard Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail during a postal workers' strike, "and courts should not interfere here either," it said. Beyond the legal tussles, the relentless use of the language of urgency, of imminent threat or national peril, is part of a broader strategy, professor Rosenblum stressed. Trump, he said, "is using the perpetual rhetoric of emergency to keep us perpetually riled up and either on the defensive and so increasingly exhausted or scared and aggressive -- and so demanding government intervention." aue-mlm/sla/sco
Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
David Hogg Takes Multiple Swipes at Democrats: 'Asleep at the Wheel'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. David Hogg took multiple swipes at Democrats as he announced that he will not fight to hold onto his leadership role in the Democratic National Committee. Hogg decried "a serious lack of vision from Democratic leaders, too many of them asleep at the wheel" in a lengthy thread on X on Wednesday night, adding that three Democratic House members have died this year after being reelected in November, giving Republicans an expanded majority. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) had voted to nullify the February 2025 elections that appointed Hogg as vice chair, citing procedural violations. In his Wednesday posts he also criticized the "crisis of competence and culture" that protects complacency and rewards seniority. It "has already cost us an election and millions of Americans their rights. Let's not let it cost us the country," he said. "We must change the culture of our party that has brought us here and if there is anything activism or history teaches us it's that comfortable people, especially comfortable people with power, do not change. In this moment of crisis, comfort is not an option." David Hogg attends the Fast Company Innovation Festival 2024 at BMCC Tribeca PAC on September 17, 2024 in New York City. David Hogg attends the Fast Company Innovation Festival 2024 at BMCC Tribeca PAC on September 17, 2024 in New York City. Eugene Gologursky//Getty Images for Fast Company This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
