Indiana lawmaker files disciplinary action against state's attorney general
Republicans Sen. Liz Brown, left, and Attorney General Todd Rokita traded blows Friday over the demise of an immigration bill — an issue that may now appear before the Indiana Supreme Court disciplinary commission. (Photos by Whitney Downard and Casey Smith/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita's claims about a sitting lawmaker — that she stopped an immigration bill for 'personal reasons' — could land him in more legal hot water after she lodged a disciplinary action against him.
Rokita, in an archived April 30 interview with conservative radio host Casey Hendrickson, said the bill 'stalled' because 'someone had a personal grudge against the language,' naming Fort Wayne Sen. Liz Brown as the barrier.
'… (She) told me one of the reasons was she's got a family member who's an illegal alien,' Rokita told Hendrickson.
In a statement shared with the Indiana Capital Chronicle, a spokesperson for Brown called the claim 'blatantly false.'
'Senator Brown does not have an illegal alien relative. This claim by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is blatantly false, and is meant to be misleading to Indiana constituents to make them think that Senator Brown has a personal conflict in performing her duties as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee,' said her legislative office said. 'These public erroneous statements are made in an attempt to hurt the credibility and transparency needed and expected in the Indiana state legislative process.'
Brown went on to confirm that she'd filed an official grievance and request for an investigation into Rokita's comments with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.
The underlying bill, House Bill 1531, would have required local law enforcement officers to comply with federal detainer requests for undocumented immigrants. It would have also banned employers from hiring unauthorized residents.
Though the bill passed out of the House on a 64-26 vote, it never got a hearing in the Senate, where it was assigned to Brown's committee. As the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Brown has the power to select which bills get a hearing — though bills can be reassigned to other committees to circumvent a chair.
When author Rep. J.D. Prescott was asked about the bill's demise by the Indiana Capital Chronicle, he referred questions to Brown.
Brown, an attorney, said she'd shared concerns with Rokita about the legislation 'early in the legislative process.' The statement cited the condensed timeline during a budget-writing session and said Hoosiers had shared issues regarding potential impacts, including the possibility of a conflict with federal law.
Rokita weighs in on federal education moves, Indiana immigration bill
Instead, the office pointed to her support for House Enrolled Act 1393, which would require local law enforcement to notify federal immigration authorities about undocumented immigrants in custody.
'(Brown) commends President Trump for the decisive actions he has taken federally to stop the flow of illegal immigration,' the statement concluded.
Rokita fired back, saying in a statement that Brown either 'provided inaccurate or unclear information to me and others in the past, or she is backtracking now.'
'As for a disciplinary complaint, Liz can get in line. She didn't give my office the authority to investigate illegal aliens, but she wants others to investigate me over comments she made. How ironic,' Rokita said. 'This is also another example of weaponization of the Indiana court system to attempt to silence me and the people of this state who are tired of sending representatives to Indianapolis who don't really represent them.'
He went on to accuse the disciplinary commission of encouraging 'this political lawfare' by endorsing political candidates, making donations and accepting complaints from 'politically partisan people.'
Rokita has faced the disciplinary commission before. He continues to litigate a case in which he called a practicing OB-GYN an 'activist acting as a doctor' after she mentioned seeing a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio travel to Indiana for an abortion. She was later fined by the Medical Licensing Board for sharing patient information — a move supported by Rokita.
Though reprimanded by the state's Supreme Court justices, a subsequent press release from Rokita's office and his public statements have prompted further scrutiny.
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
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill to amend medically assisted suicide law draws emotional debate from Maine lawmakers
Jun. 9—AUGUSTA — A proposal to allow doctors to waive the waiting period for terminally ill patients who want to be given life-ending drugs drew an emotional debate from lawmakers in the Maine Senate Monday before it was rejected by one vote. The fate of the bill is unclear after the Senate voted the proposal down 18-17. It passed 74-64 in the House of Representatives last week and faces another round of votes in each chamber before it could be sent to Gov. Janet Mills for her signature. The bill would amend a 2019 law known as the Death with Dignity Act, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in Maine. It allows certain terminally ill patients to have the option to receive life-ending medication so they have control over their death. Maine's law currently requires a 17-day waiting period from when a person requests the medication to when they can receive the prescription. The change under consideration, LD 613, would allow a doctor to waive all or a portion of the waiting period if they determine it would be in the patient's best interest. Mills supported the original Death with Dignity Act, but it's unclear if she would support the change. Spokespeople for the governor did not respond Monday to questions about whether she has taken a position on the bill. The proposal allowing for the waiting period to be waived drew emotional debate from lawmakers who spoke about how they've personally been affected by illness and death. "This is not an abstract issue for me," said Rep. Kathy Javner, R-Chester, who has metastatic breast cancer, during last week's House debate. "I am living this reality and stand before you today, not in despair, but in hope that we can preserve the dignity and meaning of life, even in the shadow of death." Javner, who was against the change, said removing the waiting period would take away the time that families and physicians currently have to reflect and consider alternative options. "Let us not respond to suffering with surrender," Javner said. "Let us respond with compassion, with presence, with resources for pain management, with palliative care, with love." Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, talked about his mother, who died at age 50 from colorectal cancer, during Monday's Senate debate. Stewart said his mother "broke out" of hospice care in order to be at home with her family at the end of her life. "I will always be grateful for that extra month we got," Stewart said. "I worry about the scenarios about what if they don't get it right and what opportunities are we forestalling through this," he added. "This was the promise that was made originally with this policy, that there wouldn't be that knee-jerk opportunity because of this protection." Maine is among 10 states and Washington, D.C., where physician-assisted suicide is legal for people with terminal illnesses, according to Death With Dignity, an organization in Portland, Oregon, that advocates for the laws as a means of improving how people with such diagnoses die. Waiting periods for medication vary state to state and can range from one day to more than two weeks, according to Death With Dignity. Some states do allow waiting periods to be waived if the patient is unlikely to survive. Maine's Death with Dignity Act has been used by 218 people since it was enacted, according to Michele Meyer, D-Eliot, the sponsor of LD 613. But another nine people have died during the waiting period because their illnesses progressed too rapidly, Meyer said last week. She said the bill does not change the law's criteria that the patient be terminally ill with a six-month prognosis confirmed by two doctors and that they have the capacity to make informed decisions. "This is simple and straight forward," Meyer said. "It corrects a rare situation that never should have existed in the first place. Some of us will not know the gift of a long, healthy life. ... Medical aid in dying offers decisionally capable adults an option to avoid prolonged suffering." In the Senate Monday, Sen. Tim Nangle, D-Windham, talked about his father's lung cancer and the pain he suffered. Nangle said he didn't know if his father, who lived in another state, would have used the Death with Dignity Act, but he said the option for the time waiver should be there. "This is about their choice," Nangle said. "What do they want to do?" Copy the Story Link
Hamilton Spectator
22 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Auditor general's report on company behind ArriveCan to be released today
OTTAWA - The latest probe into the company behind the controversial ArriveCan app is among four reports being released today by Canada's auditor general. Karen Hogan looked into all contracts awarded and payments made to GC Strategies for its work on the app to determine whether they were in line with government policy and whether the government got value for taxpayers' money. In September, the House of Commons unanimously agreed to ask Hogan to look into the contracts and her report is set to be tabled in the House around 10 a.m. ET. As of March 2024, GC Strategies — a two-man team which last week was banned from entering into contracts or real property agreements with the federal government for seven years — had received $100 million in federal government contracts since 2011. Hogan's previous report on the app's development found it did not deliver the best value to taxpayers and concluded that three federal departments disregarded federal policies, controls and transparency in the contracting process. GC Strategies received nearly a third of the $60 million total cost of the ArriveCan project, despite being awarded contracts through non-competitive processes. Hogan also will table a report today on Canada's plans to purchase F-35 fighter jets and whether the Department of National Defence ensured the aircraft would be delivered on time and on budget. Another report will look at whether the government provides adequate office space for public servants while minimizing costs to taxpayers. Canada's environment commissioner Jerry DeMarco will also table four reports today, including an audit of the National Adaptation Strategy, the federal government's $2.1 billion initiative to help communities withstand the impacts of climate change. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 10, 2025.
USA Today
40 minutes ago
- USA Today
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest | Opinion Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest. Show Caption Hide Caption Australian journalist shot with a rubber bullet in Los Angeles Australian journalist from 9News, Lauren Tomasi, was shot with a rubber bullet while reporting from the protests in Los Angeles. President Donald Trump and his band of faux-macho nogoodniks keep poking the city of Los Angeles, hoping it will squeal and create the kind of violent theater that gives right-wing media its life force. First they sent in the National Guard to address predominantly peaceful anti-ICE protests, but the sprawling city failed to adequately burn. Now they're sending in U.S. Marines to get the job done. It's an intentional, dangerous and wholly unnecessary provocation. And based on how Trump and other Republicans have reacted to the ongoing protests, we should all be clear on the administration's new rules for protesting in America. Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest For those who engage in liberal activities like reading and 'seeing things with your own eyes and believing they're real,' it might seem odd that the man who praised Jan. 6 insurrectionists as "great patriots" and then pardoned them all has the gall to call LA protesters 'insurrectionists.' Technically, there's nothing about the California protests that would make them an insurrection, while everything about the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, an effort to overturn a free-and-fair election, made it an actual insurrection. But that kind of fact-based thinking is now illegal, and protesters in Los Angeles and elsewhere need to understand that the First Amendment only applies to things Trump and Republicans want to hear. As border czar Tom Homan said on June 9 about the LA protesters: 'I said many times, you can protest. You get your First Amendment rights. But when you cross that line, you put hands on an ICE officer, or you destroy property or ICE says you impede law enforcement … that's a crime. And the Trump administration is not going to tolerate it.' Opinion: Trump lied about LA protests to deploy the National Guard. He wants violence. Correct. Unless you're a pro-Trump protester. In which case, breaking into a federal building, beating the snot out of police officers and destroying property is patriotic and easily pardonable. Rule No. 2: Protesters can only use American flags Video of California protesters waving flags from Mexico and other countries really upset a number of Republicans who have apparently never been in Boston on St. Patrick's Day. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said: 'This is an American city, and to be able to have an American city where we have people literally flying Mexican flags and saying 'you cannot arrest us' cannot be allowed.' If those protesters were waving a good old-fashioned American flag, it would be an entirely different story. But in Trump's America, flag choice matters. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called out 'left-wing radicals carrying foreign flags.' Vice President JD Vance declared on social media: 'Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers.' MIND THE FLAGS, PEOPLE! The rule seems pretty clear. Your First Amendment right only allows you to carry an American flag, unless you are a Trump supporter during an actual insurrection, in which case you can carry a Confederate flag, replace an American flag with a Trump flag or use an American flag on a pole to beat a police officer. Opinion: Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy Rule No. 3: No spitting on or disrespecting law enforcement officers In response to some LA protesters allegedly spitting on authorities, Trump declared on social media June 9: ' 'If they spit, we will hit.' This is a statement from the President of the United States concerning the catastrophic Gavin Newscum inspired Riots going on in Los Angeles. The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. These Patriots are told to accept this, it's just the way life runs. But not in the Trump Administration. IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' Some might respond to this by saying, 'But the Jan. 6 insurrectionists whom you pardoned en masse did a lot more than just spit. They brutally attacked police officers, physically injuring more than 140 of them.' To which Trump would probably say: 'Shut up. Your First Amendment rights are hereby revoked!' Or he might say what he actually said when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters after he was inaugurated Jan. 20: 'These are people who actually love our country, so we thought a pardon would be appropriate.' To clarify, the people who Trump thinks love this country, demonstrated by them loving him, are allowed to express that love by defacing a federal building they broke into and viciously assaulting police officers. People who Trump thinks don't love the country, demonstrated by them exercising their First Amendment right to protest things he doesn't want them to protest, will be beaten up for spitting. Follow Trump's protesting rules, or he'll call in the troops It's clear as mud, folks. Americans across the country should feel free to get out and protest, as long as it's for the right reasons and done in a way that aligns completely with the beliefs of Republicans and the Trump administration. Anything outside of that and they'll call in the National Guard. And the Marines. And, I guess, the flag police? Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
