AG Rokita files motion to dismiss Indiana Supreme Court disciplinary commission’s latest complaint

INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed a motion on Thursday to dismiss the latest complaint from the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.

The complaint, which was filed on Jan. 31, filed three charges against Rokita for his public statements after he was publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2023.

The longstanding political and legal battle between the Indiana Disciplinary Commission and Todd Rokita began in 2022 when the attorney general made public comments about Indiana OB-GYN Caitlin Bernard after she provided an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio.

Specifically, the most recent complaint accused Rokita of making false statements to the Supreme Court in a sworn affidavit and engaging in “dishonest” behavior after reportedly misrepresenting a Conditional Agreement stipulating that he had accepted responsibility for his actions in November 2023.

That centers on a statement Rokita released on Nov. 2, 2023, asserting that he never violated any laws. This public statement was released after Rokita signed a Conditional Agreement related to his discipline for the complaint.

The Indiana Disciplinary Commission requested that the Indiana Supreme Court release Rokita’s Conditional Agreement since his public statements appeared to contradict his “acceptance of responsibility.”

The disciplinary commission went on to claim that Rokita’s news release was already drafted in October 2023 and that Rokita himself had participated in drafting and editing the content of the message.

The complaint included prior drafts of the release that had titles such as:

• “Rokita beats attempt to take his law license” (Oct. 19, 2023 draft)
• “Cancel culture loses battle to vindicate abortionist, take law license and stifle free speech.” (Oct. 22, 2023 draft)

This was the second complaint filed against Rokita by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.

What does the motion say?

The 26-page document filed on Thursday argues that the disciplinary commission’s latest complaint is an “impermissible attempt to restrain an elected official and candidate’s political speech.”

The motion also argues that the charges brought against Rokita violate his First Amendment right to free speech and Indiana’s Anti-SLAPP statute intended to protect speech against legal challenges.

“In a November 2023 press release, during his reelection campaign, he accurately and truthfully discussed resolving a disciplinary matter, corrected false media narratives around the matter and indicated his plan to continue fighting for Hoosier values by upholding the laws of the state,” according to the motion. “The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission responded by petitioning this Court to release a previously signed confidential Conditional Agreement and Affidavit because of alleged “contradictory public statements.” In the spirit of full transparency, Attorney General Rokita consented to the release of these documents.”

The motion contends that Rokita never violated the Conditional Agreement or sworn affidavit. It goes on to claim that the disciplinary commission violated Indiana law, specifically the “constitutional separation of powers principles.”

The motion argued that the disciplinary commission’s complaint violated Rokita’s First Amendment rights, stating that the commission had not provided any evidence that could justify restricting Rokita’s speech. The motion went on to claim that Rokita was being penalized for “daring to propose common-sense reforms to the disciplinary process.”

“In light of Respondent’s defenses under the First Amendment, the Indiana Constitution,
and the Anti-SLAPP Act, the Commission should withdraw the charges against Respondent—both because those charges cannot be squared with the right of free speech and because—especially given the Commission’s implausible claims of a conflict between the Attorney General’s press release and the Agreement—insisting that this Court resolve this case will recklessly jeopardize the Commission’s credibility,” the motion concluded.