The Sloppy Ohio Court Order Against Trump, Etc.: A Nationwide and Unconstitutionally Broad Injunction?

In my last post on the order issued against Trump, Stop the Steal, etc. in the Ohio voter intimidation case, I noted the oddity that the injunction also applies against those working with the Clinton campaign but not the Ohio Republican Party. There’s no evidence that the Clinton campaign is likely to engage in any of these actions, and so an injunction against the campaign seems inappropriate. Some have suggested to me this was a typo, and if so we will hear about that in short order. I’m not sure that it was because I heard the judge at the hearing said it might apply evenhandedly.

In the meantime, I went back and looked at the order and I see that parts of it appear to apply to Trump and Stone’s actions, not just in Ohio but also anywhere in the U.S. Parts a-f do not expressly apply to Ohio, but part g applies in Ohio only. The paragraph after makes reference to Ohio law, but the rest of it does not. I think one could make a plausible argument that the judge has (likely inadvertently) issued a nationwide injunction against Trump, Stone, and others (including the Clinton campaign). Maybe someone will request clarification.

Also, the order seems to be very broad indeed, such as prohibiting any photography of voters or their vehicles. Also, it bans “admonishing.” That’s likely unconstitutionally vague, violating due process and the First Amendment.

I know that in these emergency cases things are sometimes sloppy, but this one seems like an especially sloppy one.

Let’s see if we get some clarification from the judge.

Share this: