The Supreme Court says the Jan. 6 commission may obtain Ward’s records

The Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition by Arizona GOP chairwoman Kelly Ward to keep her phone records secret, and on Monday she authorized a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The decision came in one line, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Ward was not at the Capitol when a mob tried to stop the certification of President Biden’s victory, but the House committee claimed she “played a significant role in trying to upend the 2020 election.”

The commission said it refused to accept President Trump’s loss in Arizona, and instead created a list of “fake” voters for Trump, which was relayed to Washington. Trump allies had hoped to prevent Congress from certifying a Biden victory by saying the result was in doubt because there were now competing slates of electors.

In March, Ward invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. In response, the commission requested records from its mobile service provider detailing incoming and outgoing calls between November 2020 and early January 2021.

Ward went to court to block the subpoena, arguing that it violated her rights to free speech.

She lost to a federal judge and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They ruled that the targets of a legal investigation do not have a First Amendment right to refuse to participate.

Ward then filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

Her lawyers called the investigation a political attack.

In a first-of-its-kind situation, a select committee of the United States Congress, dominated by a single political party, has subpoenaed the phone records and personal text messages of a head of state for the rival political party regarding one of the most controversial political events in American history – the 2020 election and the Capitol riot. On January 6, 2021.

As a precedent, they cite a decision last year in which the Supreme Court blocked the state of California from obtaining the names of major donors who sponsored tax-exempt charities. The conservative majority ruled 6-3 that forced disclosure of private information violated the donor’s rights to freedom of association.

However, the court said in this decision that the state can issue a subpoena to obtain the names of donors if fraud is suspected.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *