Seattle cops who went to Jan. 6 rally ask US Supreme Court for anonymity

SEATTLE - Four current and former Seattle police officers who attended the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect their identities as they fight a Washington court decision ordering the release of their names.
Their attorney is asking the justices to stay the execution of a unanimous decision by the Washington Supreme Court issued Feb. 13 finding the officers should be identified by name in court proceedings. The officers had filed a lawsuit, identifying themselves as "John Does 1-4," challenging the release of their names and details of an investigation into their attendance at the violent "Stop the Steal" political protest rally in Washington, D.C.
The investigation, conducted by the civilian-run office of police accountability, concluded the officers did not violate any laws or Seattle Police Department. Two other officers who attended the protest were fired.
A King County Superior Court judge had ordered the names of the four released, however the Court of Appeals issued an injunction stopping the release. The petitioner, Seattle lawyer Sam Sueoka, appealed to the state Supreme Court, which overturned the Court of Appeals.
The officers' attorney, Joel Ard, asked for reconsideration from the state Supreme Court's decision, which was denied April 9, resulting in his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to court records.
In his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, filed Tuesday, Ard argues that releasing the officers' identities would cause irreparable harm and violate their First Amendment rights - a claim rejected by the state justices.
"These records include, among other records, transcripts of interviews in which the applicants were compelled to participate, under threat of termination, and were required to disclose their political beliefs, affiliations, reasons for attending the rally, and their mental impressions as to the contents of the rally," Ard wrote.
"At its core, this appeal involves whether a government agency can ignore the chilling effect resulting from an employer requiring an employee to disclose their off-duty political activities ... followed by widespread dissemination to those who deliberately seek this information to subject those public servants to vilification without the commission of any misconduct whatsoever," the appeal states.
Sueoka's lawyer, Neil Fox, said Justice Elena Kagan has asked that he file a response to the officers' motion for a stay by next Friday. Should the justices issue a stay, the next move would be for the officers to file a petition asking the high court to certify the issue for consideration.
The Washington Supreme Court's justices found the officers failed to cite an applicable exemption to the state's Public Records Act and had not shown how their right to privacy in this instance would overcome the public's right to know.
"We conclude they have not met that burden because they have not shown they have a privacy right in public records about their attendance at a highly public event," wrote Washington Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis in the majority opinion. The right to privacy is reserved for "personal information" of a sort that its release would be considered "highly offensive" - not the fact that someone attended a public event along with tens of thousands of others, she wrote.
"Further," she continued, "off-duty acts of a police officer can be disclosable if their actions 'bear upon (their) fitness to perform public duty' because 'privacy considerations are overwhelmed by public accountability.'"
A key argument made by the officers is that the statements they made during the office of police accountability investigation were compelled through the use of a statute called Garrity v. New Jersey that allows public employers to order employees to answer questions that might violate their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. If they refuse to answer, they can be terminated.
To protect the employee, Garrity states those compelled statements cannot be used against the employee in a criminal case.
The four officers argue that those compelled statements include information that is personal and protected.
"Respectfully, the Washington State Supreme Court ignored the long line of cases finding time and time again that the First Amendment affords those who participate in protected political activity to be free from compelled disclosure of their identities," Ard wrote. "This appeal involves important federal constitutional questions which intersect state freedom of information laws."
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

7 hours ago

What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018. She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.

Chicago Tribune

14 hours ago

• Chicago Tribune

US strikes 3 Iranian nuclear sites, inserting itself into Israel's war with Iran

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The United States attacked three sites in Iran early Sunday, inserting itself into Israel's war aimed at destroying the Iranian nuclear program in a risky gambit to weaken a longtime foe that prompted fears of a wider regional conflict as Tehran accused Washington of launching 'a dangerous war.' U.S. President Donald Trump asserted that Iran's key nuclear sites were 'completely and fully obliterated' in an address to the nation from the White House. Hours later, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the time for diplomacy had passed and that his country had the right to defend itself, saying the U.S. had 'crossed a very big red line.' 'The warmongering, a lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far reaching implications of its act of aggression,' he told reporters in Turkey in the first comments by a high-ranking Iranian official since the strikes. Iran is a close ally of Russia, and has actively supported it in its war on Ukraine, supplying it with attack drones. Araghchi said he would be flying immediately to Moscow to meet with President Vladimir Putin 'and coordinate our positions.' The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran confirmed that attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted that its nuclear program will not be stopped. Both Iran and the U.N. nuclear watchdog said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination around the three locations following the strikes. Satellite images by Planet Labs PBC taken after the American strikes, analyzed by The Associated Press, show damage to the Fordo facility, which is dug deep into a mountain, while light gray smoke lingered in the air. It was not clear whether the U.S. would continue attacking Iran alongside its ally Israel, which has been engaged in a war with Iran for nine days. Countries around the globe are calling for diplomacy and no further escalation. Trump acted without congressional authorization, and he also warned there would be additional strikes if Tehran retaliated against U.S. forces. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he said. Iran's Foreign Ministry said Washington had 'betrayed diplomacy' with the military strikes in support of Israel, and said that 'the U.S. has itself launched a dangerous war against Iran.' Hours after the U.S. strikes, Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard said it launched a barrage of 40 missiles at Israel, including its Khorramshahr-4, which can carry multiple warheads. Israeli authorities reported that more than 80 people suffered mostly minor injuries, though one multi-story building in Tel Aviv was significantly damaged, with its entire façade torn away to expose the apartments inside. Houses across the street were almost completely destroyed. Following the Iranian barrage, Israel's military said it had 'swiftly neutralized' the Iranian missile launchers that had fired, and that it had begun a series of strikes toward military targets in western Iran. Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, and U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Tehran is not actively pursuing a bomb. However, Trump and Israeli leaders have argued that Iran could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon, making it an imminent threat. The decision to directly involve the U.S. in the war comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel that significantly degraded Iran's air defenses and offensive missile capabilities, and damaged its nuclear enrichment facilities. But U.S. and Israeli officials have said American B-2 stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound (13,500-kilogram) bunker-buster bomb that only they have been configured to carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear program buried deep underground. The attack on Fordo did employ bunker-buster bombs, a U.S. official said. In addition, U.S. submarines launched about 30 Tomahawk missiles, according to another U.S. official. The two spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss military operations. Trump appears to have made the calculation — at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republican lawmakers — that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program, perhaps permanently. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump said in a post on social media, using common alternate spellings for two of the sites. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' Trump added in a later post: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' The White House and Pentagon did not immediately elaborate on the operation. U.S. military leaders are scheduled to provide a briefing at 8 a.m. Eastern. The International Atomic Energy Agency wrote on X that there has been 'no increase in off-site radiation levels' after the strikes but that it would continue to monitor the situation. The decision to attack was a risky one for Trump, who won the White House partially on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. But Trump also vowed that he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and he had initially hoped that the threat of force would bring the country's leaders to give up its nuclear program peacefully. For months, Trump said he was dedicated to a diplomatic push to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. And he twice — in April and again in late May — persuaded Netanyahu to hold off on military action against Iran and give diplomacy more time. After Israel began striking Iran, Trump went from publicly expressing hope that the moment could be a 'second chance' for Iran to make a deal to delivering explicit threats on Khamenei and making calls for Tehran's unconditional surrender. He has bristled at criticism from some supporters who have suggested that further U.S. involvement would be a betrayal to those who were drawn to his promise to end U.S. involvement in expensive and endless wars. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump's decision to attack in a video message directed at the American president. 'Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities, with the awesome and righteous might of the United States, will change history,' he said. Netanyahu said the U.S. 'has done what no other country on earth could do.' U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called the strikes a 'dangerous escalation,' as world leaders began chiming in with calls for diplomacy. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world,' he said in a statement. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, who had threatened to resume attacks on U.S. vessels in the Red Sea if the Trump administration joined Israel's military campaign, called on other Muslim nations to form 'one front against the Zionist-American arrogance.' Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had warned the United States on Wednesday that strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will 'result in irreparable damage for them.' And Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei declared 'any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region.' The Israeli military said Saturday it was preparing for the possibility of a lengthy war, while Iran's foreign minister warned before the U.S. attack that American military involvement 'would be very, very dangerous for everyone.' Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 865 people and wounded 3,396 others, according to the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists. The group said of those dead, it identified 363 civilians and 215 security force personnel. Trump's decision for direct U.S. military intervention comes after his administration made an unsuccessful two-month push — including with high-level, direct negotiations with the Iranians — aimed at persuading Tehran to curb its nuclear program. During his previous administration, Trump pulled the U.S. unilaterally out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, prompting Tehran to begin enriching uranium to higher levels and restrict the access of IAEA inspectors to its facilities.

The Hill

15 hours ago

• The Hill

Red states are forcing public schools to go MAGA

In Oklahoma, new social studies standards sound like they were written by loyal followers of President Trump. The standards include teaching high school students about 'discrepancies' in the 2020 presidential election, including discredited theories related to the 'security risks of mail-in balloting, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contradiction of 'bellwether county' trends.' Students will also be asked to 'identify the source of the COVID-19 pandemic from a Chinese lab,' begin learning about the teachings of Jesus in the second grade and the 'ways that individuals can be patriotic' in preschool. After being accepted by the Oklahoma legislature, the new standards have sparked litigation and bitter debate. Oklahoma is by no means alone in remaking public education in hyperpartisan and, in our view, dangerously misguided ways. In an era of extreme political polarization, nothing succeeds like excess. As the pendulum has swung to the right, red state officials — acting under the banner of 'parental rights' and anti-'woke' ideology — have outdone one another in adopting restrictive instructional mandates related to religion, gender, sexuality, race and U.S. history. In 2023, Texas became the first state to permit school districts to use chaplains to counsel students during the school day. This year, the Texas legislature passed a bill allowing school districts to set aside time daily for prayer and religious study. Louisiana and Arkansas passed laws requiring classrooms in every public school to display the Ten Commandments. (On Friday, the conservative Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional.) Kentucky has prohibited instruction on human sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases before fifth grade and barred instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation. Iowa banned instruction on sexuality or sexual orientation before sixth grade and prohibited school libraries from carrying books depicting sex acts. In a backlash to the social justice activism that followed George Floyd's murder in 2020, at least 18 states passed laws banning the teaching of 'critical race theory' and restricting how teachers talk about racism, sexual orientation, gender identity and other 'divisive concepts.' Other 'educational gag orders' prohibit teachers from discussing 'controversial issues of public policy or social affairs.' If such teaching is permitted, the rules require teachers to 'strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives.' Even though two-thirds of Americans oppose book bans, books 'are disappearing' from K-12 classrooms and libraries across the country in an 'unprecedented flood' driven by 'punitive state laws' and 'pressure campaigns.' Florida has led the way. In what may become a blueprint for federal policy, the state adopted a series of laws, regulations and executive orders that 'privilege some parents' ideological preferences above all others, tie the hands of educators, and limit students' access to information.' Florida has banned the teaching of 'any concept that promotes, advances, or compels individuals to believe discriminatory concepts'; prohibited spending state funds on diversity, equity and inclusion programs; barred classroom discussion of gender identity through third grade; pulled hundreds of books that describe 'sexual conduct' or are deemed age inappropriate from school shelves; and encouraged parents to object to instructional materials they deem immoral or harmful. According to a 2024 Washington Post survey, 38 states have adopted laws either restricting or expanding teaching on race, racism, gender or history. Although some, such as a 2021 Rhode Island law mandating instruction on 'African Heritage and History,' reflect progressives' priorities, fully two-thirds of the laws are restrictive, and 90 percent of those were passed in states that voted for Trump in 2020. Conservatives insist that restrictive laws are necessary to combat 'woke' indoctrination and protect the rights of parents to educate their children in accordance with their values. Liberals argue that 'inclusive curricula' are required to enable all students to thrive. In addition to striking down Louisiana's Ten Commandment's statute, federal judges are considering challenges to many of the other red state instructional mandates. In the past, school districts have usually had wide latitude in instruction, an approach that is more responsive to the educational priorities of local communities than statewide mandates. After all, even the reddest and bluest states have plenty of residents (in places like Austin, Texas and upstate New York) who dissent, often vigorously, from the majority's agenda. The current burst of state regulation is unprecedented, and it is having a profound impact on the education of America's kids. What students are told about the subjects that most divide the country increasingly depends on whether they attend school in a blue state or a red one — almost certainly exacerbating polarization. All this has a dramatic chilling effect on teachers. According to a 2023 survey, 65 percent of teachers have restricted their instruction on 'political and social issues,' twice the number subject to restrictive state laws. For most of American history, one could claim that Newton's Third Law of Motion — for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction — has applied to politics as well. So Americans might expect that ideological extremes in state educational policy will eventually be reversed. But if U.S. institutions do not preserve the norms, practices and principles of democracy, we may discover — when it's too late — that Newton's Third Law no longer applies. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.