The Daily Signal - INTERVIEW | ‘Let's Take the Fight to Them’: Why This Legal Group Keeps Suing Biden Administration

Episode Date: May 22, 2023

An organization called America First Legal has filed at least two dozen lawsuits against the Biden administration.  "We need to fight for the American people, advance conservative principles, and be there to really make a difference," Gene Hamilton, vice president and legal counsel for America First Legal, says.   Hamilton served as counselor to the attorney general at the Justice Department during the Trump administration and he recalls growing weary of various leftist groups filing lawsuits to block President Donald Trump's agenda.  “It's a little bit of an exaggeration …," Hamilton says, "but it's almost close to the truth that every time we'd have a press conference, there would be some organization that would file a lawsuit representing somebody to get us enjoined before we could even get done with the press conference to get things off the ground."  When President Joe Biden came to office in January 2021, Hamilton and Stephen Miller, who was a senior advisor in the Trump administration, decided to “do what they do.”  “Let's take the fight to them,” Hamilton says of America First Legal’s approach to fighting the policies of the Left. “Let's be equipped and ready to bring the battles to the Left, wherever it may be, whether that's in the government, whether that's in big business, big education, wherever.” Hamilton joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss how America First Legal is fighting the Biden administration'seffort to redefine sex. He also explains how the legal group is looking into Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Trump. Colorado Wants to Force Her To Create LGBTQ Wedding Websites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfk1q-EXNDE Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Canadian Tire's Black Friday sale. With the lowest prices of the year. Hello, can we go? Limbo again. Shop the Black Friday sale at Canadian Tire and save up to 60%. November 27th to December 7th. Conditions apply. Details online.

This is the Daily Subal podcast for Monday, May 22nd. I'm Virginia Allen. America First Legal has filed at least two dozen lawsuits against the Biden administration. Gene Hamilton says. Gene Hamilton is Vice President and Legal Counsel for America First. legal, a group that is working to hold the Biden administration to account. After serving in the Trump administration and watching so many left-leading groups bring lawsuits against the work of the Trump administration, Hamilton said he grew frustrated and decided he was going to take the fight to

them during the Biden administration. Hamilton joins the show today to explain some of those lawsuits and how his organization is working to bring accountability back to Washington, D.C. Stay tuned for our conversation after this. And I'll never forget just being fearful for my life. Let me phone calls, emails, protests outside the shop. I remember sleeping on the floor of my bedroom. Seeing the headlights driving by, just wondering if someone was going to carry out on some of the threats that I had seen in emails.

Here I am on this journey, hopefully to protect not only my right to speak freely, but everyone's right to do just the same. You've just listened to a sneak peek from our brand new documentary about Lori Smith. She's a web designer who the state of Colorado wants to force into creating LGBTQ websites and other content that directly violates her beliefs. We spoke with her and with Christian Baker Jack Phillips about their cases and about what's at stake for the First Amendment. You can find the documentary on the Daily Signal's YouTube channel or in the show notes for

this episode. Vice President and Legal Counsel of America First Legal Foundation, Gene Hamilton, is joining us today. Gene has also served as counselor to the Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice. Gene, thanks for being here. Thanks for having me. So go ahead first and just tell us a little bit about the mission of America First Legal Foundation. So I'll start with a little bit of a backstory, which is having served in the Department of Justice for four years. and witnessed firsthand the sustained attacks on our country,

on everything that we tried to do. I mean, it's a little bit of an exaggeration to say that, but it's almost close to the truth, that every time we'd have a press conference, there would be some organization that would file a lawsuit representing somebody to get us and join before we could even get done with the press conference to get things off the ground.

And that was a really enlightening experience for us to be able to witness that and see, well, gosh, why can't we do anything? There's always someone who's ready to fight. Someone on the left is always ready to fight and stop the good work that we're trying to do. So fast forward, the end of the administration, Stephen and I got this thing put together and we thought, you know what, let's do what they do. Let's take the fight to them. Let's be equipped and ready to bring the battles to the left, wherever it may be, whether that's in the government, whether that's in big business, big education, wherever, take the fights to where they need to be brought. We need to fight for the American people, advance conservative principles, and be there to really make a difference. I think Stephen has described us as the conservative answer to the ACLU,

and hopefully someday we'll be as large as them. But we've had a tremendous record so far, and it's been a lot of fun. How many lawsuits has America First Legal Foundation filed against the Biden administration? Well, against the Biden administration, probably a couple dozen at least, And I think we have a total of, I don't know, probably like 80 to 90 lawsuits going on right now against various, you know, whether it's local schools, whether it's the Biden administration, whether it's corporations, other entities. We are, we like to stay busy and we wish we could do more. Yeah. That's a lot. Well, I want to talk through some of these legal actions because I was interested to see some of the areas where you all really are engaging. And of course, one of those issues is education. You guys are on the forefront. are really trying to protect the rights of parents within education. And in March, America First Legal Foundation, you filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education and Secretary Miguel Cardona on behalf of parents in Cedar Grove, New Jersey.

Now, this situation involves schools gathering information on kids' sexuality. Explain what is going on here. Absolutely. So look, Congress passed a law called the Protection of Pupil Rights Act or Amendment. I forget the precise terminology. This has been on the books for decades, on the books for decades, and it gives parents the right to opt out, to get their kids, to inspect curriculum, and to opt out of these surveys, they're administered to kids about certain delineated subjects. And what we are seeing across the country in various local school districts are, it's whether it's a survey that's collecting information, instead of information about, you know, a third grader's gender ideology, about their sexual habits, about all kinds of. of just disgusting things that you never thought would have ever happened but they're doing.

Another example, another area where this comes to the forefront is in the area of curriculum. What are you teaching your kids in your schools? What kind of things are being taught? Are you using critical race theory methods to teach children? What are you instructing them with? Federal law, if you accept federal funding, which most public schools do, gives parents the right to object and to inspect. Well, the problem is that a lot of these school districts aren't honoring those requirements to inspect or to object.

And so there is a process that has been set up, which is the parents, if they suspect a violation, then they file a complaint with the Department of Education. That puts the onus on the Department of Education to conduct an investigation, to look into things. They have an Office of Civil Rights. That's their job. Hey, what's the school district doing? What's going on here? let's get to the bottom of it.

The problem is that the Department of Education under the Biden administration doesn't care. They don't want to do anything. They don't want to look into this stuff because they agree with it. And so we have sued the Department of Education to require, to ask the court to require that they do their job,

that they actually open an investigation and they do what they're supposed to do, what Congress has instructed them to do. And so we're optimistic that, you know, we'll prevail on that, but that's just one example of one of the many things that we're trying to do to fight for parents' rights and for kids across this country. Yeah, yeah, truly one of the many examples, like you said. You guys have a lot of

various legal actions open right now, but you did recently have a legal victory. You all filed a lawsuit and won a challenge on a key provision on the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare. What provision were you all challenging and what was your success there? Yeah, absolutely. So the affordable Care Act established all kinds of changes to our health care system, as everybody knows. One of the changes that it made was it established this Preventative Health Services Task Force, which is a kind of body of unelected, unaccountable people. So it's kind of the medical experts who are charged with determining every single type of condition that a health insurer has to offer as,

with no copay. And so it's basically what do you have to do, what do the insurers have to subsidize? Which, of course, the only way that they're going to be able to subsidize that is to raise everybody else's premiums, to be able to cover some of these services without any kind of cost sharing. And so, okay, fine, if that's the judgment that Congress is going to make and they're going to invest some power in the federal bureaucracy to do that,

that's a judgment call. And I think there might be some problems with that on some other angles. But what they did here is by appointing people who are accountable to no one. Their decisions are not reviewed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. They're not reviewed by anybody. There's no oversight. So you have this kind of elite technocratic group making decisions that influence billion dollars, I mean billions of dollars of industry decisions just on a whim based on whatever this group decides to do,

which violates the appointments clause of the United States Constitution. So federal power, exercising federal power like that is supposed to only be done by the federal government or by officials that supervise the underlying conduct or approve it. And so that was a big victory. It was a good win. We'll see how it goes. It's working its way through the appeal process now. But again, it's just another example.

And, of course, this has been in existence for well over a decade now of unelected, unaccountable, elite, technocrats making decisions that affect the health care of every American in the country. And that's unacceptable. It's unacceptable. We can't have a situation where there is no political accountability for these decisions that are being made. Yeah. Well, one of the other areas where you all are seeking to bring accountability has to do with an investigation into former President Donald Trump.

And obviously, we've all been hearing about this in the news quite a lot recently. The name, Alvin Bragg has become a common name, I think, in households across the country. as we sort of understand what exactly is going on here. So you all recently, you all began looking into this investigation that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg launched against former President Donald Trump. And you're trying to obtain internal and external communications from key leaders regarding former President Donald Trump. What do you think you might find as you investigate what was going on in this office

what were the communications back and forth? Yeah, look, I mean, I think that what we're going to see is kind of a tangled web of key personnel making decisions based not on the interests of justice or the citizens of New York, for example, but based on preferred political outcomes, right? They want to take down their perceived political enemies. So they'll stop at nothing. So there's this, everyone knows, some names have already become public knowledge, like Michael Colangelo, who was the acting associate attorney general in the department. of Justice under the Biden administration. That's the number three position in the Department of Justice. He went from that to the New York District Attorney's Office to work on this thing.

Hmm. You know, there is something, something seems off here. And when you look at the underlying circumstances that also, that we've recently uncovered for folks, relating to the circumstances surrounding the Mar-a-Lago raid, where everything initially, the story was, Nara said, well, all. We obtained these records, we got these records back, and we made a referral to our office of Inspector General, who then made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice to open this investigation.

Okay. Interesting, interesting story. Actually, I don't know that the NARA IG has the power to make a criminal referral, but regardless, what they failed to talk about and what they failed to mention was that the White House also used a special access request to provide these underlying records and material for, you know, from NARA to the FBI. So think about that convoluted set of circumstances. Under the Presidential Records Act,

there's only limited circumstances under which NARA can disclose presidential records. And they're all delineated by statute. If someone is there's an ongoing criminal investigation, of course a court order can provide access to records. But that's not what they did here. They didn't use that. They didn't go to a court to try to obtain access

to these records. Instead, they created this kind of try to watch my language here, this absurd justification to say that, oh, actually, we need to do this. Now, the problem is, is that under the Presidential Records Act, for those types of requests, for White House special access requests, it has to be germane, it has to be material to the, to the president's ongoing business of the operations of the White House. So you think about this in terms of, hey, what did the last president's, um, uh, uh, uh, the president's, uh, ethics policy look like. What kind of things were in there and how did they adjudicate problems or issues as they arose?

Or what about the two presidents ago or three presidents ago? These are the types of things that those kind of ministerial things that pertain, that are germane to the White House's operations that you typically use those for. That's the only circumstances that you can under the statute. But what they did instead was the FBI and the DOJ approached the White House and said, hey, we'd really like to look at these things. Could you help us out? and they said, sure, we'd be more than happy to sign off on this.

And then they provided access to the records, which led to the underlying predicate of the raid at Mara Lago. And so what we're trying to uncover in all of these circumstances are abuses of power. In the targeting of political opponents by those in law enforcement across the country, whether that's at the federal level or the state or local level, all Americans should be offended at the notion that political opponents of those in power can be targeted and taken out just because the regime opposes them. Yeah. And what have you all learned so far that you're able to share with us?

And what's really the end goal, the end objective here? So the end objective is, again, to shine a light and to expose wrongdoing. That's really what we're about. And it's a key part of our mission. So we litigate cases, of course. We take cases, we file lawsuits, and we fight in courts all the time. for the rights of Americans across the country. But we also do this oversight is a huge part of our mission,

which is really holding people accountable and bringing things to light that aren't going to be brought to light otherwise. And so a lot of that, you know, so far, well, I'm not at, you know, there's some stuff that we're not ready to talk about yet or in some leads that we're working on that I probably shouldn't talk about just yet. Sure. But again, all of this is done with an eye towards bringing accountability

to people in power. You know, if it works, it has to work both ways in this country. In the last administration, we had all kinds of people trying to hold us accountable for different things. And look, mistakes were made, and so in some cases, and in some cases, it's good to bring that accountability and to allow people to be held accountable. But it has to work both ways. It can't just be a one-way street. And that is exactly why we're here. We're here to try to do what the left has done to the right.

over and over and over and over again without any kind of pushback from the conservative movement. So that's why we're here. Well, and I do want to address an issue that relates to education and that I know that you all are passionate about, and that's protecting women's sports. And this relates to some very recent news that we've seen where there was a bill put forward to protect women's sports. It passed through the House, but not a single Democrat voted for it. Why do you think not a single Democrat is willing to say we should prevent men from being able to compete in women's sports?

Well, that's a great question. I mean, for decades, for decades and decades, people fought and women fought to have the ability to have their own athletic competitions, their own sports, their own sporting events, their own teams, because of the inherent biological differences between men and women. And that that was a goal, that was a shared goal, whether you're conservative or liberal or whatever, that was something that everyone accepted in society as being a good thing for us to do. The fact that not a single Democrat voted for that bill that you're talking about is reflective of the capture of the leadership of that party and of the liberal movement, generally speaking, by radical ideologues who don't want there to be by. biological differences, who don't want there to be differences between men and women. Because remember, what their mindset is today is that you can be anything you want to be at any moment in time. So if today you want to be a man and you want to identify as a man, that's great. Tomorrow you want to identify as a woman, you can identify as a woman, and that's fine.

And that is where their leadership is. And that is where their kind of core motivating base is. and so there's probably a lot of Democrats who I think at their core in their hearts would be more than happy to have voted for that thing, but they're not going to dare cross their leadership to do the right thing because it is contrary to their dogma, to their current speech and the way that they advertise everything. So, I mean, it's a sad state of affairs. It just goes to show the extent that they have moved on the left so far. to the left. And the things that were once mainstream, even 10, 15 years ago, are now viewed by them as being way far to the right, ultra-conservative people on the right, all the mega

movement, when a lot of this stuff, if you just look back and he had a time machine, and he went back to 2005, and he said, guess what? In 18 years, men are going to be identifying as women. They're going to be competing in sports. They're going to be doing all kinds of things, and no one is going to do a single thing about it. I think most people would say that's ridiculous. That's the craziest thing I've ever heard, but that's where we are. It is where we are. Well, and you all have really been on the forefront

and having conversations about Title IX. And the Biden administration, they have proposed a rule change to Title IX to change the definition of sex within Title IX to say it includes gender identity and sexual orientation. and this makes a way for men to be able to compete in women's sports, for men to have access to things like women's bathrooms, women's locker rooms. And we already started seeing this in some places, and specifically we saw it in Loudoun County. Now, you all, you filed a complaint against Loudoun County schools regarding a violation of Title IX. Explain what happened here.

Yeah, in a very kind of similar fashion, Title IX also has investigatory requirements that have to be done, school districts have to maintain, to investigate and to look into violations of Title IX. And so that can come in the form of, in a lot of places, especially in the education setting, sexual harassment or sexual abuses, and they have to have a policy in place to look into these things. And, of course, what we believe to be the case is that Loudoun County completely failed to do that. And it's evidenced by the fact that there was this horrible sexual assault in the bathroom of a student at Loudoun County. And there was no investigation and there was really nothing that was done about it.

And it's been a subject of a lot of debate, a lot of things going on with a lot of folks in Virginia interested in this issue. But again, it's an area where we hope the Federal Department of Education does its job and holds people accountable for not having a policy. in place. It's a meaningful Title IX thing. But you look, we'll just, we'll have to see what happens because this is the same department that's pushing these regulations that are trying to redefine the ability of folks to engage in sports based on things like gender identity. And it's nonsense. I mean, everyone knows the statute, when Congress passed it, when they were talking about sex, they meant biological sex. Gender identity was not a thing. And the fact that there's trying to advance this radical notion based on an inherent executive authority to try to

interpret some regulation violates, I think, fundamentally, one of the most kind of core legal principles that you could have, which is the text of our statutes are all that we have. You can't go around the text. You can't go around the text. When Congress wrote biological sex into these statutes, they didn't mean gender identity. 1988, they didn't under, or 1989 or 1979 or any of these prior decades where there's been actions in that space, there's no concept of gender identity. This is not like a thing that people openly talked about all the time and it was not where it is today. And so we'll see

what happens with that. You know, we'll keep our fingers crossed. But ultimately, our job is to watch, see what happens. And when there is not action or when there are things that are done that are wrong, is to take action and try to bring accountability for folks. Yeah. Well, and you all are trying to bring that accountability, not just to the government, but also to big businesses, through challenging hiring practices

and in so many different capacities. For those who are interested in diving deeper into the work that you all are doing, how can they do that? Well, the first thing they can do is go to our website, www.aflegal.org. We put everything there for folks to see. There's a whole lot of things, resources, case descriptions,

our oversight work. We even have a thing called the woke wagon where you can find the resumes and supporting information for almost every political appointee in the Biden administration.

We have all kinds of stuff there, which is great. You should follow us on Twitter, follow us on Facebook, any of the other social media platforms, but we do get a lot of our stuff put up on Twitter. We make sure that that's an active place.

We are doing a new thing almost every day, and it's hard to keep up with, But I would say, follow us, sign up for our email list, follow us on social media, go to our website. It's interesting stuff. It should be interesting to you. If you are a conservative who cares about anything, across the conservative movement, there's a pretty good chance that we're working on it. And you should probably check out what we're doing because it's not just a white paper.

We're not just talking about stuff. We are actually doing things. We're actually jumping in front lines and taking action. And whether, you know, I think we've been successful and we've had a good, good record so far, but we're not afraid to lose. We're here to fight. That's why we are here. Jean Hamilton of America First Legal Foundation.

Thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. And with that, that's going to do it for today's episode on this Monday morning. Thanks again for joining us here on the Daily Signal podcast. If you've never had a chance, be sure to check out our evening show that we produce and bring you every day around 5 p.m. that has the top news of the day, all the stories that you don't want to miss. Also, take a moment to subscribe to the day that's ago, wherever you like to get your podcast

or across all platforms, and take a moment to leave us a rating and review. We love hearing your feedback. We hope that you all have a great Monday, and we'll see you right back here at 5 p.m. for our top news edition. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. Executive producers are Rob Blewey and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Asheras. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop.

To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.