Arizona governor candidate Kari Lake has often criticized Michael Crow, the president of Arizona State University (ASU) for myriad perceived offenses. But three ASU students may hold the key to getting a defamation claim filed dismissed against the former television news anchor.
On Monday, those students participating in the ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law’s First Amendment Clinic had their names included on a Motion to Dismiss filed in Maricopa County Superior Court as part of Lake’s response to the defamation lawsuit brought by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer in June.
The students argue Richer’s claims must be dismissed under Arizona Revised Statute 12-751, formally known as Arizona’s Strategic Action Against Public Participation statute and more commonly referred to as the state’s Anti-SLAPP law.
They further argue that Richer cannot satisfy his burden under the law to show his lawsuit “was not motivated to deter, retaliate against, and/or prevent Defendants’ lawful exercise of their free speech rights.”
“The sole issue in this case is whether a political candidate should have a judgment entered against her for comments about a public official regarding an election, a matter of significant public concern,” the motion argues, noting the Arizona Legislature passed ARS 12-751 to make it easier to dismiss suits that directly interfere with a speaker’s constitutional rights.
Since 2018, ASU’s First Amendment Clinic gives students experience in many aspects of a First Amendment and media law practice. In the past, students have defended libel and invasion-of-privacy suits, argued to unseal court records, fought to make state and federal agencies release documents, and advocated for changes in government policies.
The Clinic’s involvement in the Richer v. Lake case is all about the law and the First Amendment, and not about political ideology, according to Gregg P. Leslie, the Clinic’s longtime executive director and himself a veteran attorney.
“Arizona has a law that protects free speech, and that’s what we’re defending here,” Leslie said. “Public officials shouldn’t be going to court to punish and silence speakers, even if they hate their speech and allege that it’s untrue.”
The First Amendment Clinic is listed as co-counsel for Lake along with Timothy La Sota and Jennifer Wright. La Sota and Wright also represent the other two defendants – Lake’s official gubernatorial campaign and Save Arizona Fund Inc., an organization Richer alleges Lake controls.
“The political arena is messy, and we have to allow for speech that may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials, as the U.S. Supreme Court has stated,” Leslie added. “People need to allow speech on matters of public concern to be free, even when they strongly disagree with a speaker.”
The opportunity to work with some of Leslie’s students has been a pleasure, Wright told Arizona Daily Independent.
“As ASU Law School alums, Tim and I are excited to be working with ASU faculty and students to protect our First Amendment right to harshly criticize our elected officials,” Wright said.
Richer, himself an attorney, is represented in his legal action by 10 attorneys located across the country. Several of the principal attorneys graduated from Harvard Law School.
While recognizing the serious legal issues at stake, La Sota noted he looks forward to the case shining a bright, positive spotlight on the many talented law students in Arizona.
“It will give me great joy seeing ASU outmatch the Harvard Law School elites that are trying to abuse the judicial system to silence Arizonans,” he said.
According to the motion to dismiss, Richer “certainly has the right to publicly dispute Defendants’ speech.” But ARS 12-751 prevents Richer from bringing forth a lawsuit “in an attempt to punish or silence such speech simply because he disagrees with it,” the motion argues.
In addition, the motion argues a public official like Richer cannot initiate an expensive defamation lawsuit against an individual’s non-criminal speech, even if suing in his personal capacity for comments made about his public competency.
And that is exactly what Richer has done, as evidenced by his public comments about his lawsuit, the motion contends.
“This case presents an important opportunity for the Court to carry out the core
purpose of Arizona’s recently amended Anti-SLAPP statute to prevent public officials from using private litigation as a means to punish and prevent speech on political issues that should be considered as part of the open public discourse guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions,” the motion argues.
READ MORE:
Unfazed Lake Dogs Richer Over Defamation Lawsuit As She Seeks Legal Fund Donations