Indiana Supreme Court denies AG Rokita's motion to dismiss disciplinary complaint
Indiana's Supreme Court on Friday denied Attorney General Todd Rokita's call to dismiss a second disciplinary action against him — both stemming from public comments made three years ago about his investigation of an Indianapolis abortion provider.
'It is exceptionally rare for respondents to file motions to dismiss disciplinary complaints, and even rarer that we grant them,' Justice Derek Molter wrote in the unanimous opinion.
The high court's denial came without prejudice — allowing Rokita to potentially refile — 'because we conclude the arguments he makes in his motion are better addressed through the hearing process and our subsequent review,' Molter continued.
The court appointed a three-member hearing panel instead of its typical lone hearing officer, accommodating a proposal from Rokita.
'Appointing three distinguished members of the bench and bar to serve as hearing officers is particularly appropriate in this case, which involves conduct at the intersection of law and politics,' a concurring opinion from Justice Christopher Goff said.
He noted that the political role assumed by many state attorneys general in contemporary America creates tension with licensing obligations that they assume as members of their state's bar.
'When a licensed attorney, entrusted with the full legal power of a state, advocates (or legally implements) divisive policies advocated by national partisans, their statements and actions can, in some circumstances, be both politically popular within their state and violative of its rules of professional conduct for attorneys,' Goff said.
'And because the legal power of a state attorney general is so great, such popular but unprofessional conduct can hurt real people and impede official processes. When that happens, people harmed by such conduct will look to the attorney-discipline process for relief,' he continued.
Indiana taxpayers have covered more than $491,000 in legal bills defending Rokita in multiple disciplinary investigations and formal ethics cases, according to records obtained by the Indiana Capital Chronicle.
In a 2022 interview with Fox News commentator Jesse Watters, Rokita called Indianapolis doctor Caitlin Bernard an 'activist acting as a doctor' and said his office would be investigating her conduct. Bernard, an OB-GYN, oversaw a medication abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio in 2022.
That November, in a split decision and public reprimand, the high court justices found that he had violated two of the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers:
They said Rokita's comments constituted an 'extrajudicial statement' that he knew — or reasonably should have known — would be publicly disseminated and would prejudice related legal proceedings.
They also said his statements had 'no substantial purpose' other than to embarrass or burden Bernard.
Rokita and Indiana's Discplinary Commission disputed over a third charge — engaging in conduct 'that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' — which the commission agreed to dismiss in exchange for 'admission to misconduct' on the others.
In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to the two violations and acknowledged he couldn't have defended himself successfully on the charges if the matter were tried.
But the same day the reprimand was handed down, Rokita called the dispute a 'failed attempt to derail our work' in a lengthy and unrepentant news release. He said he had 'evidence and explanation' for what he said on air, but chose not to fight the complaint any further to save 'taxpayer money and distraction.'
The Disciplinary Commission filed a new round of charges against him in January, alleging he wasn't being truthful when he told the court he was accepting responsibility for his actions.
Rokita attempted to dismiss the new complaint in February, which the Disciplinary Commission opposing his motion.
'We reach no judgment at this stage about those allegations or defenses because it is premature to evaluate them through a motion to dismiss where the parties are arguing over competing inferences that may depend on evidence outside the current record,' Molter wrote in the court's opinion.
The case will now move before a three-judge hearing panel. Members were picked from the northern, central, and southern regions of Indiana to 'protect against a public perception that political considerations could unduly influence a single officer,' according to the opinion.
They include Indiana Court of Appeals Judges Cale J. Bradford and Nancy H. Vaidik, and attorney William G. Hussman.
CONTACT US
Bradford and Vaidik are currently serve on the Indiana Court of Appeals, and both have been elected by their colleagues to serve as their court's Chief Judge in the past.
Hussmann is a practicing attorney whose public and private sector experience Indiana Supreme Court includes serving as a U.S. Magistrate Judge, as a deputy attorney general, and as a staff attorney with the Indiana Disciplinary Commission.
The court also encouraged the hearing panel to discuss mediation with Rokita and the commission.
'While we are only at the pleadings stage, the parties' discussion of the claims through their early filings is already voluminous,' Molter wrote. 'And up to this point, their submissions, though extensive, reveal very little factual disagreement. That disagreement is vehement, but it also seems narrow, so there may not be much to litigate through a hearing.'
The panel will submit a report, and the court will review the evidence and evaluate the law. Molter noted the court doesn't defer to the report but does give it more emphasis because of the direct observation of witnesses included.
Possible sanctions include a private or public reprimand; suspension from practice for a set period of time; suspension from practice with reinstatement only after the lawyer proves fitness; and permanent disbarment.
Senior Reporter Casey Smith contributed.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
MAGA ‘Shark Tank' Star Slammed Over His Take on ‘Childbearing' Epstein Victims
MAGA businessman Kevin O'Leary got into a heated exchange during a CNN panel after suggesting that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell just want to 'get on' with their lives. The Shark Tank star was on a roundtable discussing the saga surrounding the convicted sex offenders, with NewsNight host Abby Phillip asking him why President Donald Trump has not ruled out pardoning Maxwell, who is serving 20 years in jail for helping Epstein abuse children for years. 'If any of you cared about the victims, you wouldn't drag these women who are in childbearing years now, some of them now having children, back into the limelight, back into the same story, to expose them again to this hideous outcome,' O'Leary said Tuesday. 'These guys, they don't want you to help them anymore.' Former MSNBC host Tiffany Cross asked O'Leary: 'How do you know that? What are you basing that on? You've spoken to the victims who said that they don't want justice?' O'Leary then admitted that he 'has spoken to no one' but is just being 'pragmatic' regarding what he believes the hundreds of Epstein and Maxwell victims want. 'Don't you think if it was you, you'd rather get on with your life?' O'Leary asked Cross, to which she replied, 'No, if it were me, I would want justice pursued.' The ongoing furor surrounding Epstein, a convicted pedophile who died in custody in 2019, continues to cause headaches for Trump and his team after backtracking on a vow to release all the files related to the disgraced billionaire and denying the existence of a so-called 'client list' implicating powerful figures. Department of Justice lawyers, including one who previously represented Trump, met with Maxwell over two days amid growing pressure to release more details about Epstein's crimes to appease the increasingly restless MAGA base. Maxwell, who is currently appealing her conviction at the Supreme Court, is demanding immunity before testifying before Congress after being subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee. Trump has kept open the possibility of pardoning Maxwell in an apparent bid to convince her to reveal more information about Epstein's crimes. The president has been keen to inform reporters that he is 'allowed' to do so. Elsewhere during the CNN roundtable, Nayyera Haq, a former senior adviser at the State Department under the Obama administration, argued that Trump himself is responsible for the renewed spotlight on Epstein and Maxwell. 'The reason this story exists is because he repeated it through the Biden administration, through his early years, to the point where his Attorney General [Pam Bondi] said that she's going to look at the papers on her desk, they're there right now, she has hundreds of hours of video to release,' Haq said. 'This is all of his own doing, and now he's trying to walk himself out of the hole.'
UPI
4 hours ago
- UPI
Trump admin. hits Brazil with tariffs, sanctions over Bolsonaro case
Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes participates in a June 9 hearing on the criminal case against former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. On Wednesday, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned the judge. File Photo by Andre Borges/EPA July 30 (UPI) -- The Trump administration on Wednesday hit Brazil with tariffs and sanctions over the criminal case against former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro. President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday imposing a 40% tariff on Brazilian goods, for a total levy of 50%. The executive order accuses Brazil of taking actions that harm and threaten the economy of the United States as well as mentioning Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, whom the American president said abused his judicial authority "to target political opponents," specifically Bolsonaro, a Trump ally. It also cites other prosecutions and censorship of social media in the South American nation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday also announced sanctions against de Moraes, which include the blocking of all of his property and investments in the United States. "Alexandre de Moraes has taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in an unlawful witch hunt against U.S. and Brazilian citizens and companies," Bessent said in a statement. "De Moraes is responsible for an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions -- including against former President Jair Bolsonaro. Today's action makes clear that Treasury will continue to hold accountable those who threaten U.S. interests and the freedoms of our citizens." The action by the Treasury Department is based on the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act and targets perpetrators of serious human rights abuses worldwide. De Moraes was appointed to the Brazilian Supreme Court in 2017. "Since that time, de Moraes has become one of Brazil's most powerful individuals, wielding immense authority through his oversight of expansive STF investigations," the Treasury Department release said. "De Moraes has investigated, prosecuted, and suppressed those who have engaged in speech that is protected under the U.S. Constitution, repeatedly subjecting victims to long preventive detentions without bringing charges. "Through his actions as an STF justice, de Moraes has undermined Brazilians' and Americans' rights to freedom of expression. In one notable instance, de Moraes arbitrarily detained a journalist for over a year in retaliation for exercising freedom of expression." The judge is investigating online misinformation and has ordered the takedown of social media accounts that violate Brazil's freedom of speech. In 2024, Elon Musk's X restored service in the country after paying a $5 million fine and appointing a new legal representative there. Trump's social media company, The Trump Media & Technology Group, sued de Moraes in February, accusing him of censoring conservative voices on social media. On July 19, Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked the visas of the judge and his family members. De Moraes doesn't travel often to the United States, The Washington Post reported. "President Trump made clear that his administration will hold accountable foreign nationals who are responsible for censorship of protected expression in the United States," Rubio said in a statement then. "Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes's political witch hunt against Jair Bolsonaro created a persecution and censorship complex so sweeping that it not only violates basic rights of Brazilians, but also extends beyond Brazil's shores to target Americans." The announcement came 11 days after the State Department revoked de Moraes' visa. The visa restriction policy is pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the secretary of State to deny entry to anyone whose entry into the United States "would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." The judge is on the judicial panel presiding over Bolsonaro's trial before Brazil's Supreme Court. He was indicted in February after an alleged coup. Bolsonaro has been accused of attempting to violently retain power after his 2022 election loss to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Lula, in a speech earlier this month, condemned Bolsonaro's supporters, whom he accused of siding with Trump about the "witch hunt." "They're the true traitors of the homeland," he said. "They don't care about the economy of the country or the damage caused to our people." Four days before Rubio's order, Trump called the nation's treatment of the former leader a "witch hunt." Trump wrote a letter to Lula threatening a 50% tariff on imported goods on Aug. 1 because of how Bolsonaro "has been treated" and an "unfair trade relationship." The United States has a trade surplus, exporting roughly $49 billion worth of goods in 2024 compared with $42 billion in imports, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Trump said that "the way Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. The trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY." Trump also noted "Brazil's insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the Fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans." Three days later, Trump posted on Truth Social a letter sent to Bolsonaro about his "terrible treatment you are receiving at the hands of an unjust system turned against you," demanding an immediate trial. "It is my sincere hope that the Government of Brazil changes course, stops attacking political opponents, and ends their ridiculous censorship regime. I will be watching closely."
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court halts ruling that limits Voting Rights Act enforcement
The Supreme Court on Thursday halted an appeals ruling that prevents private groups from challenging election maps under the Voting Rights Act in seven states. Neither the majority nor the three public dissenters — conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — explained their reasoning. The case arose from a lawsuit brought by two Native American tribes, who argue that North Dakota's state legislative map denied them an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. The tribes are represented by Campaign Legal Center, Native American Rights Fund and two other law offices. The case entered the national spotlight after an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled 2-1 that the tribes and other private parties have no legal right to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It mimicked an earlier 8th Circuit ruling concerning a redistricting case in Arkansas. The Supreme Court's emergency ruling lifts the 8th Circuit's ruling until any appeals are resolved. It does not reflect the court's final decision on the matter. It comes as the justices prepare to rehear a major redistricting case in Louisiana next term, which legal observers have closely watched as several conservative justices signal a desire to make it more difficult to bring Voting Rights Act lawsuits. The high court has not yet announced the legal question it will consider when it rehears the case. The tribes, backed by the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, argued the 8th Circuit's recent decision is at odds with decades of history and takes away a key pathway to challenge discrimination in the seven states the 8th Circuit covers. 'They likewise contradict every circuit court and three-judge district court—all unanimous unlike the divided decision below—ever to have considered the question of private enforcement of Section 2,' the tribes wrote in court filings. North Dakota urged the justices to turn away the appeal, stressing the tribes' 'assumptions are not holdings.' 'And the fact that Section 2's private enforceability was not previously challenged does not mean Congress spoke with the clarity needed to create a privately enforceable right, as members of the Court have recognized,' the state wrote in court filings. In statements Thursday, the tribes' legal representation celebrated the decision. 'For decades, Tribes and Native Americans in North Dakota have fought for the rights of reservation voters,' said Lenny Powell, a staff attorney at Native American Rights Fund. 'Today is another victory in that fight.' Updated July 25 at 10:55 a.m. EDT. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
