Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell launches campaign for Alabama Attorney General
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WHNT) — Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell has officially launched his campaign for Alabama Attorney General.
Mitchell is known for his conservative rulings and tough-on-crime approach to law and order at the Alabama Supreme Court.
'With President Trump in the White House, we have a unique opportunity to get conservative wins here in Alabama,' Mitchell said. 'I'm running for Attorney General to stop the lawlessness, restore order, and dismantle Joe Biden's radical left wing policies.'
If elected, Mitchell said that he intends to focus on the following issues:
Crack Down on Violent Crime: 'Alabama is safer when criminals face real consequences. I will lock up violent offenders and make sure they stay locked up.'
Enforce Immigration Law : 'I will make sure that Alabama does its part to aggressively pursue mass deportations.'
Back the Blue: 'Our law enforcement officers are the thin blue line between order and chaos. They have my steadfast support.'
Defend the Sanctity of Life: 'No matter the cost, I will stand firm to protect the unborn.'
Fight the Woke Agenda: 'No boys in girls' sports. No DEI. No more woke nonsense.'
A video of Jay Mitchell officially announcing his campaign can be found here.
Mitchell first became a member of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2018, but recently resigned from his post.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
High court blocks Hamas victims' try to reopen case against Lebanese bank
WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that it would not allow relatives of victims and survivors of Hamas attacks from 2001 to 2003 to reopen a case in which they accused a Lebanese bank of providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court ruled in BLOM Bank SAL vs. Michal Honickman, in an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of extraordinary circumstances for reopening the case. When the case was originally tried in 2019, the relatives and victims lost because they failed to prove the bank knowingly took on clients affiliated with Hamas. The victims and relatives then wanted to offer evidence to which they claimed they had access later. They cited as precedent Rule 60(b), which outlines the reasons why a case could be reopened after a judgement has been issued, such as a mistake in the judgement or evidence unavailable to the plaintiffs during their original case. "It is Rule 60(b)'s standard -- and only Rule 60(b0's standard -- that applies when a party seeks relief from final judgement. A party seeking Rule 60(b) relief must always demonstrate 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying relief," the court wrote. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion in which she parted from her colleagues, warning that courts should not deny requests to reopen cases simply because the requesting party was given a chance to amend a case while it was ongoing. "In particular, I think the district court was wrong to fault plaintiffs for making a 'deliberate choice' to appeal the dismissal of their complaint in lieu of accepting various pre-dismissal opportunities to cure purported pleading deficiencies." Brown wrote. The victims and families accused the Lebanese bank of aiding and abetting attacks from 2001 to 2003 by providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. In 2019, the families attempted to sue the bank, but the judge dismissed the suit for not providing evidence that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court even asked the survivors and families' lawyer if they wanted to amend the case, but they declined. They later found evidence they said proves that the bank knowingly engaged with Hamas affiliates, so they went back to court to reopen their case. Their lawyer, Michael Radine, criticized the Supreme Court's decision. Radine said in a statement to UPI that the district court would not allow his clients to retry the case unless they could meet "the erroneous and essentially unmeetable pleading standards raised by the defendant and adopted by the district court." He added that the district court required evidence such as acts or statements from bank employees proving affiliations with Hamas before discovery. "Few plaintiffs will have access to a defendant's internal communications before discovery, which is why the [2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] tossed that pleading standard as 'too exacting,'" Radine said in the statement. During the original case, the families appealed to the 2nd Circuit and were turned down again, so they returned to the lower courts and asked to retry the case and submit evidence proving that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated individuals. They were told their case did not meet the requirement to be reopened, so the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit again. "Indeed, today's decision could empower district courts to prevent plaintiffs from amending their complaints whenever the state of the applicable law is unclear," Radine said. BLOM Bank SAL's lawyer Michael Hugh McGinley didn't respond to a request for comment.
Wall Street Journal
31 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Lawmakers Need to Get Back Into the Game on Trade
In an unambiguous and unanimous ruling, the U.S. Court of International Trade held that President Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs' and fentanyl tariff actions exceeded his constitutional and statutory authority. We believe the ruling will stand up under Supreme Court review. While chronic trade imbalances remain, the administration now must deploy other trade strategies and authorities to address global overreliance on the U.S. to support the longstanding economic order. Congress can help by reclaiming its Constitutional authority to direct trade. The trade court's ruling states that the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, can't authorize sweeping tariffs without violating what is known as the nondelegation doctrine. A three-judge panel ruled that IEEPA doesn't grant unlimited, unreviewable authority for the president to declare national emergencies unilaterally or impose tariffs arbitrarily. The ruling cited foundational Supreme Court cases such as Youngstown Sheet&Tube v. Sawyer, as well as more recent decisions such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, on improper delegation of authority from Congress to the executive branch. The court also invoked the 'major questions doctrine' of the Roberts court as part of the argument against Mr. Trump's claim of broad trade authority. In its argument before the trade court, the administration heavily relied on U.S. v. Yoshida International, a 1974 Supreme Court decision that upheld President Nixon's brief imposition of a 10% across-the-board tariff aimed at addressing a trade deficit spike. But that reliance ultimately undermines the administration's case for three key reasons. First, Yoshida involved presidential authority under the Trading with the Enemy Act, a statute that was later expressly amended to curtail executive power. Second, the Yoshida opinion emphasized the narrow and temporary scope of Nixon's tariffs, which stands in contrast to Mr. Trump's broader measures. Finally, following Nixon's actions, Congress enacted Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, granting the president more narrowly defined authority to respond to trade imbalances.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill Clinton worries the ‘courts won't hold until the midterm election' in terms of checking Trump
Bill Clinton told The View on Thursday his biggest concern right now with the Trump administration is that 'the courts won't hold until we have the midterm elections' and this is something everyone 'should be worried about' regardless of their politics. Appearing on the daytime ABC talk show alongside novelist James Patterson to promote their upcoming thrillerThe First Gentleman, the 42nd president was first asked to weigh in on Donald Trump's first few months back in office. The former commander-in-chief, whose wife lost the 2016 presidential election to Trump, laid out a fairly dark vision of the current state of the country. 'I agree with you that we need to talk about the future and beyond President Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill,'' co-host Sunny Hostin noted. 'He is working to dismantle, in my view, our foundational institutions, right?' She continued: 'He's intimidating law firms and universities. He's stifling media. He's illegally disappearing people and deporting people. And he's now threatening to impeach judges. So are you confident that the courts will hold, and what concerns you most about what he's doing now?' Reacting to Hostin's question, which referenced the administration's complaints about a 'judicial coup' amid a spate of unfavorable court decisions over Trump's executive orders and policies, the former president wondered what would happen if the White House just outright defied the judicial branch. 'That the courts won't hold until we have the midterm elections,' he replied to the View host. 'Because they've made – the Supreme Court has made some good decisions which so far have been ignored.' Clinton then brought up the case surrounding Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador's notorious CECOT mega-prison despite a 2019 court order barring his deportation. The Supreme Court affirmed a ruling in April that the administration must 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return to the United States, but he is yet to be sent back. The federal judge in the case ruled this week that Abrego Garcia's lawyers can seek sanctions against the government. 'They sent him away, then manufactured a picture that made it look like he had MS-13 on his hands, which he didn't, and the guy is still there in jail,' the former president declared. 'And so I'm worried about that. And you should be worried about that, whatever your politics.' Still, as Clinton expressed fear that the judicial branch may be eradicated within the next year, he did offer up a glimmer of hope that a Trump exit from the White House will eventually bring about strengthened checks and balances. 'I have a sinking suspicion if we – if our party wins the White House in the next election, there will be a hallelujah moment and the Supreme Court will rediscover the Constitution,' he said to applause. 'I'll be happy if that happens, because all of us should operate under guardrails,' Clinton concluded. 'The whole purpose of the Constitution was to repeal royal governments, unaccountable governments that no Democrat or Republican can be without accountability. That's what I think, so we'll see what happens. But I'm pretty upbeat about it.' With the White House increasingly attempting to undermine the courts and casting the federal judges as corrupt and impeachable, legal experts told The Independent that 'Trump could be on a path to contempt of court or his own impeachment,' but that 'nobody knows where a 'dangerous moment for democracy' is headed.' Additionally, the administration's relentless attacks on the courts for not rubber-stamping the president's agenda ignore 'the fact that Trump's unprecedented usage of executive actions could itself be responsible for his sky-high rate of failure in court,' The Independent's John Bowden notes. Clinton's fears about what the Trump administration will unleash in the coming months echo his warnings just ahead of last year's election. Campaigning for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris at the time, Clinton told CNN, 'What has surprised so many people – although I'm sure this happened in the '30s throughout Europe, when they were considering things with fascism – a lot of people just can't believe how many voters in America agree that he doesn't make sense, agree that he's advocating things that would be bad, but somehow think that if the experience was good for them back then, it was magically his doing and everything was fine.' He added, 'So, I don't know what's going to happen.'
