This month, the Coolidge Reagan Foundation has called upon the Michigan bar to investigate and sanction Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., over her comments on Gaza and Israel. While I have been critical of Tlaib over her rhetoric and claims on the Hamas attack and later war, I believe that such sanctions would be inimical to free speech and pull the bar into political controversies.
Dan Backer, the foundation’s counsel, accused Tlaib of spreading “vile, antisemitic lies to foster hatred towards a people” and said that she should be held accountable.
Backer insists that Tlaib “clearly violated” the Michigan bar’s ethics code due to her inflammatory remarks.
The complaint alleges
“Attorney Tlaib’s false, discriminatory, and anti-Semitic comments regarding the horrific massacre and other crimes the international terrorist group Hamas ruthlessly unleashed against innocent Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, including kidnapping, rape, beheading children, burning people alive, and murdering a baby by placing him in an oven. In response to these atrocities, Attorney Tlaib made several public statements evincing deeply discriminatory, antisemitic views that call into question her character and fitness to practice law.”
What is interesting about the complaint is that it cites the fact that, on November 7, 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives publicly censured Attorney Tlaib for her statements. Censure resolutions have no inherent punitive element unless they are tied to a removal or ban from committees. However, it can be used, as here, as the basis for collateral sanctions.
The question is whether this is an appropriate basis for the bar to investigate and sanction a member. Once again, I am in accord with the Foundation in the view of Hamas as a terrorist organization. However, the bar is not the proper forum for such controversies, in my view, and the action could make it more likely that sanctions will be used in the future against other political viewpoints. I have expressed that same discomfort with the effort to disbar many Trump lawyers over their election claims absent unethical filings or unlawful actions.
The complaint points out that Tlabi said that she was “grieving” for the Palestinian losses and supported the “resistance” to what she said was Israel’s “apartheid.” The group admits that these comments are not “actionable in themselves” but cites them as evidence supporting possible sanctions.
The group also cites Tlaib’s claim that Israel intentionally bombed al-Ahli Arab Hospital. I also criticized Tlaib at the time for making this unsupported claim. However, she was not alone. The New York Times and other media outlets were making the same claim. They were also wrong to do so, but this was a common point of contention among media, governments, and advocates.
The group notes correctly that Tlaib did not remove her social posting and continued to call for an investigation by the United Nations. However, again, calling for an investigation cannot be an unethical act. She publicly stated that she wanted the investigation to confirm the culprit. The failure to remove the earlier claim can be defended as superfluous given the widespread reporting of the comment and her later public call for an investigation.
The group also cites Tlaib’s statements that Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing, “genocide,” and the massacre of civilians. Those are political statements that should not be the subject of bar investigations in my view. They are protected speech under the First Amendment.
Finally, the group cites Tlaib’s use of the slogan “from the river to the sea!” It is generally viewed as a call for the eradication of Israel. However, again, this is a political slogan and its use would be protected speech under the First Amendment.
The group cites Mich. R. Prof’l Cond. 6.5(a) requiring “A lawyer shall treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process. A lawyer shall take particular care to avoid treating such a person discourteously or disrespectfully because of the person’s race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic.” This rule would take on a dangerous meaning if political advocacy could be treated as unethical conduct because it is viewed as “discourteous.”
The group notably cites the Fieger case in Michigan, a case that I previously criticized as denying the free speech rights of attorneys. The case against controversial lawyer Geoffrey Fieger was successful, but in my view was wrong despite my disagreement with Fieger’s comments. The action was based on an incident in 1999 after the state Court of Appeals earned Fieger’s ire with a ruling that overturned a $15-million jury verdict Fieger won for a client in a medical malpractice case. Fieger took to his radio show to blast the judges with vulgarity. It was viewed as an insult to the bench and unbecoming a member of the bar.
Fieger was tied directly to the need for lawyers to act with respect to the bench and to maintain proper decorum in the discussion of such cases. Putting aside the opposition from some of us in the free speech community, it was not a broader ruling allowing sanctions for political advocacy.
The second basis for the complaint is Mich. R. Prof’l Cond. 8.4(b), which declares that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, [or] misrepresentation . . . where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.” The group notes that as a member of Congress, she has “heightened duties … beyond other citizens.”
The Foundation cites the Deutsch case. However, that case involved a threshold ruling reversing the dismissal of actions against Marvin G. Deutch and Vickey O. Howell after they were found to have committed drunk driving claims. Notably, Deutch was remanded for further proceedings under a different provision concerning criminal acts under MCR 9.104(5).
Howell was remanded under Rule 8.4. However, the emphasis was on the fact that she committed a criminal act and the remand was to allow the bar to “fully consider Howell’s recidivism and probation violation, among other aggravating and mitigating factors.” Again, the extension of such rationales to political advocacy presents serious implications for the First Amendment as well as the bar.
The fact is that lawyers often advocate for unpopular clients or causes. The majority often finds their advocacy obnoxious, discourteous, or even threatening. However, if political advocacy can be used as the basis for disbarment or sanctions, the chilling effect would be glacial.
As members of the free speech community, we often advocate for the speech rights of those with whom we disagree. I have long disagreed with Rep. Tlaib on a host of issues, including the Hamas massacre. However, this action would cross a dangerous line in the sanctioning of political speech in my view.
For that reason, I must respectfully disagree with this effort and I believe the bar should reject the call for sanctions.
Most people in Western democracies treat Hamas (and Iran) as rational political movements with grievances that can be negotiated. This is not only naive, it’s DANGEROUS and it led to Barak Obama making a horrible error. We imagine everyone else, deep down, thinks like us. THEY DO NOT!!
Many people in the West can’t understand the nature of radical political Islam. Iran and its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi, etc. consider the destruction of Israel to be sacred work. Good Muslims must kill the Jews because they are responsible for all the wars and revolutions, worldwide. That’s how Hamas’s massacre inspired this worldwide “latent” anti-Semitism to come out of the closet.
THERE ARE NOT 2 SIDES TO THIS STORY and there never will be.
From the river to the sea was coined by Yasser Arafat in 1964, well before there was any idea of “occupation” or “colonization”. It has one meaning; the State of Israel is illegitimate and must be eliminated. People may want to reinterpret it today, but its meaning was clear then and is clear today.
For all the Hamas apologists, rape is NEVER an expression of “resistance”
Dragging naked grandmothers through the street does not support “decolinization”
Burning babies in their cribs will not “free” Palestine
These and others are ALL inexcusable, premeditated WAR CRIMES.
Hamas cannot be legitimized by the civilized world in any way, shape or form…and if the civilized world doesn’t grasp that idea, we are all lost!
There is a MORAL BRIGHT LINE to this story, and if the world refuses (once again) to recognize it, we are all lost!
Hamas burning or beheading babies? These are all lies. Ever since Israelis always resort to telling lies- what crimes they had been doing, they put it in the hands of the Palestinians..Israelis told the world that they’re the victims! Unbelievable, an occupying power being the victim? From 1948 up to now they had been killing Palestinians, destroying their homes, cordoned their communities under siege, yet killer Israelis calling themselves victims..
The truths are coming out: IDF immediate response on Oct.7 attacks IDF soldiers shot both fleeing attackers together with their hostages in the running gun battles.. Israelis lied about tunnel in Alshifa Hospital.. No less than PM Ehud Barak told that the alleged bunker was built there by the constructors of the hospital during it’s construction, not done by Hamas..
Well done. You have convinced everyone you are a nutcase living in an alternate reality.
Hamas is a terrorist organization that should be destroyed. If you like them so much you can join them.
I am astonished by Tlaib being an attorney. Shocked is putting it mildly. How could someone of her temperament and utter disregard for the constitution and common decency be a member of the bar?? Unbelievable.
Her temperament is vastly superior to that of the bullies who are trying to disbar her simply because they think they have the power to do so. The notion that she violated any disciplinary is frivolous to the point that Backer et al. need to be disciplined.
Oh stop–yes, I agree that the bar has no authority to discipline her for First Amendment protected speech, but doesn’t Tlaib advocate the silencing of people for their speech?
The issue the American public does not understand about From The River to the Sea that most of the non-Western world does, is that it is not a call to eradicate Jews. Americans are unable to differentiate Judaism and the state of Israel. The call is geared towards Palestinian control over their land, i.e. they take political charge but Jews (&and Christians) can continue living there, as they have for over a millennium under countless Muslim empires. Of course, many Americans (who have a neo-settler psyche given we live on the land of Native Indians who were mostly massacred and humiliated) would want Israel to be in charge. But that should not be conflated with accusing the Palestinian side of eradicating Jews. Most people don’t study non-American history books so they won’t know that Jews historically felt the safest in Muslim territories and were the most harmed under Christian European empire rule and Christian European nation states.
What an ignorant post. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (WW2) and his nephew Yasser Arafat disagree. So does the Hamas Charter. Take the issue up with your friends.
I imagine the issue. like others before it, will be solved by the ongoing war. The winner will take the spoils and hopefully peace will return to the land.
Ahh yes, the problem with protecting free speech, is allowing people that don’t deserve it, to use it. I may never agree with what she says, but I will defend, until my death, her right to say it. Choosing to make excuses for atrocities, is her right, disagreeing with her is my right, silencing her, is no ones right. There is no excuse for barbarian murder of non combatants.
Pro-Palestinian protestors, like the execrable Tlaib, demand the protection of a *Western* value — free speech. They then use that *Western* value to promote a culture and a cause that systematically rejects free speech.
Do they see that? Probably not. They are so driven by blind hatred and virulent antisemitism that they cannot see anything.
O T (Political Prisoners)
There is a report that Derek Chauvin was stabbed in prison, and is seriously injured. If he dies, it is little less than judicial murder. He was “convicted” of the murder of George Floyd because the Left wished to advance its supreme narrative that White Racism, in the form of the police in this instance, continues to ruin the lives of “minorities”. (“Let’s have rioting!. What spellbinding television!”) The autopsy report of Floyd showed that he had ingested a double or triple fatal dose of fentanyl. One of the consequences of this drug is respiratory arrest. Floyd was complaining of an inablilty to breathe before Chauvin ever entered the scene. And, in pinning Floyd to the ground by holding his foot against the BACK of Floyd’s neck, Chauvin was using a technique he had just been taught by the police force. It would now greatly please the Left if someone conveniently bumps off Chauvin before some brave politician or media figure starts to ask why Chauvin is in prison.
O T (J6 “Insurrection”)
Jimmy Dore has a tape of Nancy Pelosi’s daughter talking to J6 Defendants, where she says, in effect, that the J6 defendants were railroaded for political purposes. She admits that if the J6 defendants could get out of the DC Circuit, they would be acquitted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_ekWKOFcfM She notes that the Shaman was sentenced to 31 months in jail for doing nothing.
Professor Turley makes a fundamental error. He naively assumes that Tlaib shares his values and conducts herself according to the same rules that he does. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Progressives like Rashida Tlaib will say or do anything – literally anything – if they think it will help them gain or keep power. From the river to the sea. From Dearborn to Detroit. By any means necessary.
Take a look at Tlaib’s official portrait at the top of the Professor’s post. Tlaib poses, smiling, while cloaked in the flag of the nation whose values she detests.
Tlaib should pose in front of the Palestinian flag. Like the one outside of her office. A pose that reflects carries far more weight among her true constituents. Oh wait. She already has.
From the river to the sea. From Dearborn to Detroit. By any means necessary.
All of what you say about Tlaib could be accurately said about those who filed the complaint against her.
Wrong, she should have already been sanctioned and disbarred.
The legal guild has failed and Tlaib is a case in point – she is a terrorist.
She supports genocide of Jews and the destruction of Israel, a U.S. ally. How is that not unethical at the very least.
You’re wrong on this one.
A lawyer is not protected because his or her speech is political.
Lawyers are the role models for truth, justice, and the American Way. It is a fiduciary duty.
Political speech does not give a lawyer who is under a higher duty the right to lie to the public. Nor does the 1st Amendment breach that fiduciary duty.
If the lawyer wishes to forsake this fiduciary duty to the public, he or she can resign their membership in the Bar and lie to their heart’s content.
But it is not fair nor constructive to paint honest members of the Bar who are trying to uphold the nation’s laws in a fiduciary manner as liars.
That destroys the whole legal system.
This procedure should be invoked against all of those Justice Department Lawyers who participated in the Russia hoax and similar government activities.
Tlaib’s “speech and debate” have gone well beyond political speech and into supporting terrorism.
Tlaib’s existence in the “legal” “system” is a symptom of its collapse.
This witch has free speach rights just like the rest of us. That doesnt mean we have to listen to her. Independent Bob.
She doesn’t have the right to support terrorism.
What would the Western equivalent of Hamas do with this treasonous and psychotic illegal immigrant (e.g. by the Naturalization standards of the American Founders)? Likely more than censure and sanction.