William Pryor: Unfit to Judge

Endnotes

1 Jonathan Ringel, “Conservative AG Would Be Controversial 11th Cir. Pick,” Fulton County Daily Report (Jan. 8, 2003).

2 See Law Professors’ Letter of July 13, 2001. A full copy of the letter, which elaborates further on these criteria, is available from People For the American Way.

3 Bill Pryor, Attorney General, Practical Reform of the Constitution of Alabama (Sept. 26, 2000) (emphasis added), http://www.ago.state.al.us/speeches.cfm?Item=Singel&Case=37 (visited June 3, 2003).

4 “Should Business Support Federalism?”, Remarks of Attorney General Bill Pryor, 1999 National Lawyers Convention, The Federalist Society (Nov. 12, 1999) (emphasis added).

5

6 See, e.g., Bill Rankin, “Judicial Nominee a Conservative True Believer,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution (May 25, 2003).

7 “Fighting For Federalism,” Remarks by Attorney General Bill Pryor, Atlanta Lawyers’ Chapter, Federalist Society (Mar. 28, 2001) (hereafter “Fighting For Federalism”),
http://www.ago.state.al.us/issue/fed032801.htm (visited June 3, 2003).

8 Id.

9 Id. (emphasis added).

10 Id.

11 In a speech given in 2000, Pryor described Morrison as “[t]he most important decision of this term [1999-2000] regarding federalism.” “The Supreme Court as Guardian of Federalism,” Bill Pryor, Attorney General of Alabama, before the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation (July 11, 2000), http://www.ago.state.al.us/speeches.cfm?Item=Single&Case=8 (visited June 5, 2003).

12 Notwithstanding Pryor’s strong support for state authority and sovereignty, he has filed several amicus briefs arguing against the authority and sovereignty of Indian tribes. See Brief Amicus Curiae of the States of Montana, Alabama, et al. in Support of Petitioners, Nevada v. Hicks, 1999 U.S. Briefs 1994 (Nov. 30,2000); Brief of Amicus Curiae States of California, Alabama, et al. Supporting Reversal, Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians, 2002 U.S. Briefs 281 (Jan. 23, 2003).

13 “Fighting for Federalism” (emphasis added). Reviewing the Court’s early states’ rights decisions in 1997, Pryor said “let’s come back in a few years and see if it is time for the party to begin.” Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, “Federalism and the Court: Do Not Uncork the Champagne Yet,” Remarks Before the National Federalist Society (Oct. 16, 1997), http://www.ago.state.al.us/speeches.cfm?Item=Single&Case=11 (visited June 3, 2003).

14“The Supreme Court as Guardian of Federalism,” Bill Pryor, Attorney General of Alabama, before the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation (July 11, 2000), http://www.ago.state.al.us/speeches.cfm?Item=Single&Case=8 (visited June 3, 2003).

15 Id. (emphasis added). The day after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore Pryor said, “I’m probably the only one who wanted it 5-4. I wanted Governor Bush to have a full appreciation of the judiciary and judicial selection so we can have no more appointments like Justice Souter.” Phillip Rawls, “Bush’s Co-chairmen Say No Interest in Federal Jobs,” Associated Press (Dec. 13, 2000) (emphasis added).
Pryor has been harshly critical of Congress itself for passing such laws as the Gun Free School Zones Act and the Violence Against Women Act, which were struck down by the Court in whole or in part in Lopez and Morrison. According to Pryor, “[t]hese blockbuster decisions are fundamentally the result of Congress abdicating its responsibility to concentrate on truly national concerns and instead gauging its priorities based on the politics of the moment.” Madison’s Double Security: In Defense of Federalism, Presentation of Attorney General Bill Pryor before the Louisiana Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society (Mar. 1, 2002).

61 “The Demand for Clarity: Federalism, Statutory Construction, and the 2000 Term,” William H. Pryor, Jr., the Federalism Project of the American Enterprise Institute (July 11, 2001), http://www.federalismproject.org/masterpages/supremecourt/pryor.html (visited June 3, 2003). And a year later, Pryor called the Spending Clause “my new hobby.” Transcript, NPR “Justice Talking,” Religious Liberties: Moment of Silence Debate, as published in Engage, Vol. 3 (Aug. 2002).

17 See Brief For Respondents, Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 1998 U.S. Briefs 791 at *13 (Aug. 17, 1999) (claiming that the Court had never “upheld a prophylactic exercise of section 5 power in the context of non-suspect classifications”).

18 “Fighting For Federalism.”

19 In another recent case concerning environmental issues, Pryor filed an amicus brief arguing that in deference to states’ rights, the Army Corps of Engineers should not have the authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “deep ripping” activity that can harm wetlands. Without reaching Pryor’s arguments, the Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision that interpreted the law to grant the Corps such authority, contrary to Pryor’s position. See Borden Ranch Partnership v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 261 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001), aff’d by equally divided court, 537 U.S. 99 (2002); Brief for the States of Alabama, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Borden Ranch Partnership v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2001 U.S. Briefs 1243 (Aug. 26, 2002).
On behalf of the state of Alabama alone, Pryor also urged the Court to review and reverse an important ruling upholding Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause to authorize a regulation protecting the endangered species of red wolves on private land. The Court denied review. See Gibbs v. Babbitt, 214 F. 3d 483 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 2001 U.S. Lexis 1130 (2001); Brief for Amicus Curiae the State of Alabama in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Gibbs v. Babbitt (Jan. 26, 2001). Pryor has expressed disappointment that the Court did not hear this case, as he had urged, so that it could “address the limits of the Commerce Clause.” Pryor, “Competitive Federalism and Environmental Enforcement,” 10th Annual Beach and Bar Symposium, Alabama State Bar Environmental Section (June 8, 2001), at 21-25.

20 In sharp contrast, when it has suited Pryor’s purpose, he has urged the Court to pay great deference to congressional fact findings. An amicus brief that Pryor joined in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition urged the Court to uphold a federal ban on “virtual” child pornography, arguing that “deference must be accorded to [Congress’] findings. . . ” Brief of the States of New Jersey, Alabama, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, 2000 U.S. Briefs 795, *8 (Apr. 23, 2001). The Court rejected Pryor’s position and struck down the law as a violation of the First Amendment. Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).

21 See Brief of Amici Curiae the States of Alabama, et al. in Support of the Respondents, Reno v.Condon, 1998 U.S. Briefs 1464 (Sept. 3, 1999); Brief of the States of Alabama, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, Jinks v. Richland County, 2002 U.S. Briefs 258 (Jan. 15, 2003); Brief of Amici Curiae States of Nevada, Ohio, Alabama, et al. in Support of Petitioners, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Yeskey, 1997 U.S. Briefs 634 (March 4, 1998); Brief for the States of Alabama, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 2001 U.S. Briefs 1368 (Aug. 22, 2002). In Condon, Jinks, and Hibbs, Pryor was the lead state Attorney General on the briefs.

22 Particularly given Pryor’s states’ rights ideology, it is interesting to note that Pryor -- the Alabama co-chair of the Bush/Cheney campaign -- filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court against the states’ rights position in Bush v. Gore. Pryor’s brief, which was not joined by any other state, urged the Court to overturn the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court concerning the recount of presidential election ballots. Moreover, Pryor’s otherwise disturbingly narrow view of the Equal Protection Clause when the rights of individuals are at stake — as discussed in the civil rights section below -- suddenly became expansive when it came to protecting the Bush campaign and its supporters. See Brief for the State of Alabama as Amicus Curiae Supporting Reversal, Bush v Gore, 2000 U.S. Briefs 949 (Dec. 10, 2000).

23 Pryor expressed the same beliefs in his Baccalaureate Speech to the 1997 Independent Methodist School Graduating Class (unpublished speech identified in his response to the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire).

24 “Do Not Uncork the Champagne Yet.”

25 Alabama and six other states had in fact filed an amicus curiae brief in Romer urging the Court to uphold Amendment 2. The brief bears only the names of the respective state attorneys general. See Brief of Amici Curiae States of Alabama, et al., Romer v. Evans, 1994 U.S. Briefs 1039 (Apr. 21, 1995). At the time, Pryor was Alabama’s Deputy Attorney General, where, by his own account, he was “lead counsel for the State of Alabama in all major civil and constitutional litigation.” (Response to Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, at 18.)

26 Brief of the States of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102 (Feb. 18, 2003) (hereafter “Pryor’s Lawrence Brief”), at 21.

27 Testimony of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism & Property Rights (July 15, 1997), http://www.ago.state.al.us/issue/testimony.htm (visited June 5, 2003).

28 Id. (emphasis added).

29 Ironically, in one of his efforts to limit another civil rights law, Pryor has praised the Voting Rights Act precisely because at least parts of it do “not apply to all States” but only to those “which have been identified by Congress as having violated voting rights.” Brief of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the States of Alabama, et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner, >Medical Board of California v. Hason, 2002 U.S. Briefs 479, *12 (Jan. 10, 2003) (concerning Title II of the ADA).

30 See, e.g., Phillip Rawls, “Siegelman Urges Passage of Amendment Two,” Associated Press (Oct. 31, 2000).

31 Brief of the States of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102 (Feb. 18, 2003) (“Pryor’s Lawrence Brief”).

32 The facts of the case are as stated in the Brief of Petitioners, Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102 (Jan 16, 2003).

33 Editorial, “Pryor’s Opinion Goes Beyond Mainstream,” Tuscaloosa News (May 4, 2003).

34 Brief of Petitioners, Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102 (Jan 16, 2003), at 6-7.

35 To be clear, we do not believe that such laws, which invade the privacy of adults in the most intimate aspects of their lives, should be considered constitutional.

36 According to Pryor, “Texas is hardly alone in concluding that homosexual sodomy may have severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences, which do not necessarily attend heterosexual sodomy, and from which Texas’s citizens need to be protected.” Pryor’s Lawrence Brief, at 17 (emphasis added).

37 Even a conservative like Charles Fried, Solicitor General during the Reagan Administration, has written of sodomy laws directed at gay people: “[u]nless one takes the implausible line that people generally choose their sexual orientation, then to criminalize any enjoyment of their sexual powers by a whole category of persons is either an imposition of very great cruelty or an exercise in hypocrisy inviting arbitrary and abusive applications of the criminal law.” Charles Fried, Order and Law: Arguing the Reagan Revolution – A Firsthand Account, at 82-83 (1991).

38 Pryor is currently defending his own state’s sodomy law in a lawsuit brought by four gay and lesbian plaintiffs who have asserted that the law violates their constitutional rights. Doe v. Pryor, No. 02-14899-BB (11th Cir.). One of the plaintiffs, a lesbian, had custody of her child taken away by the Alabama Supreme Court, which cited the state’s sodomy law in support of its holding that she had exposed her daughter “to an illegal lifestyle,” and that the law was written “to make all homosexual conduct criminal.” Id., Brief of Appellants, at 3-4 (Oct. 21, 2002). Nonetheless, Pryor, whose own brief calls the plaintiffs “practicing homosexuals,” Brief of Appellee, at 2 (Dec. 2, 2002), successfully moved the District Court to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing, either because they had suffered no injury or the court could not redress any injury. See Brief of Appellants. The case is currently on appeal before the Eleventh Circuit, and Pryor has urged that court to uphold the dismissal of the case, allowing the sodomy law to stand. Brief of Appellee. Oral argument was held on June 6, 2003.

39 In his zeal to defend the Texas law, Pryor not only filed an amicus brief in the case, but with the consent of Texas actually filed a motion asking the Court to take the unusual step of allowing Alabama to present oral argument as an amicus. Motion of Respondent and Amicus Curiae Alabama for Divided Argument and For Leave of Amicus Curiae Alabama to Participate in Oral Argument, Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102 (Mar. 5, 2003). The Court denied Pryor’s motion. Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102 (Mar. 21, 2003).

40 Pryor considers his opinion that the rights of lesbian and gay couples joined in civil unions in Vermont would be extinguished in Alabama to be particularly “noteworthy” according to his response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s question asking him to “[d]escribe the most significant legal activities you have pursued.” Answers to Senate Judiciary Committee Questionnaire, at 42-44.

41 The Judiciary Committee should also ask Pryor about another matter pertaining to discrimination against gay people. In Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. Pryor, 110 F.3d 1543 (11th Cir. 1997), the Alabama Attorney General’s office defended against a Free Speech challenge a blatantly unconstitutional, anti-gay state statute that prohibited any university from using public funds to “directly or indirectly, sanction, recognize, or support the activities or existence of any organization or group that fosters or promotes a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws . . .” 110 F.3d at 1545. As a result of this law, the University of South Alabama, which provided funding to more than 100 registered student organizations, denied funding to one of those officially recognized groups, the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance (“GLBA”).

The GLBA sued the Attorney General and University officials, charging that the statute constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. The district court agreed and declared the law to be unconstitutional. GLBA v. Sessions, 917 F. Supp. 1548 (N.D. Ala. 1996). Only the Attorney General appealed. 110 F.3d at 1546. A unanimous Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. Pryor, 110 F.3d 1543 (11th Cir. 1997). Pryor was the Deputy Attorney General when this case was decided by the district court. In that capacity, by his own description, Pryor was “lead counsel for the State of Alabama in all major civil and constitutional litigation.” (Response to Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, at 18.)

42 Pryor’s view of gay men and lesbians as second-class citizens is such that he even re-scheduled a family vacation so that it would not coincide with the annual “Gay Day” at Disney World in Florida. “Pryor Rearranges Vacation Over Homosexuals at Disney World,” Associated Press (June 6, 1997). According to AP, “Pryor’s family left for Orlando three days early so the six-day trip would end before the homosexuals arrived for the unsanctioned assembly this weekend.” Id.

43 In an amicus brief in Dickerson v. United States, Pryor urged the Court to hold that Miranda was not a constitutional rule. See Brief for the States of South Carolina, et al., as Amici Curiae Urging Affirmance, 1999 U.S. Briefs 5525 (Mar. 9, 2000). In a 7-2 ruling, with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the majority opinion, the Court rejected this argument and held that Miranda was a constitutional decision of the Court and therefore could not be overruled by an act of Congress. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).

44 < a href=“http://www.naral.org/mediaresources/fact/pdfs/pryor_facts.pdf”>http://www.naral.org/mediaresources/fact/pdfs/pryor_facts.pdf (visited May 19, 2003).

45 http://www.naral.org/mediaresources/fact/pdfs/pryor_facts.pdf
(visited May 19, 2003).

46 Jay Reeves, “Pryor Backing Bill to Involve State Attorneys in Juvenile Abortion Cases,” Associated Press (Feb. 24, 1999). Accord, Amy Bach, “No Choice for Teens (Abortion),” The Nation (Oct. 11, 1999).

47 Jay Reeves, “Pryor Backing Bill to Involve State Attorneys in Juvenile Abortion Cases,” Associated Press (Feb. 24, 1999).

48 Id.

49 Id.

50 Alabama Editorial Roundup, Associated Press (Feb. 26, 1999), quoting “The Birmingham Post-Herald, on Bill Pryor and Alabama Lawyers for Life: A bad idea.”

51 Helena Silverstein, “Article: In the Matter of Anonymous, A Minor,” 11 Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 69, 90 (Fall 2001).

52 Pryor had filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in Stenberg along with a number of other state attorneys general urging the Court to uphold the Nebraska law. Brief Amicus Curiae of Virginia, Alabama, et al. in Support of Petitioners, Stenberg v. Carhart, 1999 U.S. Briefs 830 (Feb. 28, 2000). This brief argued that, consistent with principles of “federalism,” the Court should accept the narrowing interpretation of the Nebraska law given by that state’s attorney general and uphold the law. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the attorney general’s interpretation of a statute did not bind the state courts. Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 940-41.
Pryor also supported the position of those opposed to reproductive choice by filing an amicus brief in Scheidler v. NOW, 123 S. Ct. 1057 (2003). In his brief, Pryor went beyond the Court’s holding that the federal RICO law could not be used against anti-abortion advocates because they did not “obtain” property of an abortion clinic under the federal Hobbs Act, arguing that the RICO law should never be interpreted to permit a clinic or other private party to seek injunctive relief. See Brief for the States of Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Scheidler v. NOW, 2001 U.S. Briefs 1118 (July 12, 2002).

53 See Mike Cason, “Activist Says Pryor Killed Abortion Bill,” Montgomery Advertiser (Dec. 3, 1997) (“Pryor’s attorneys defend his move as an effort to keep a federal judge from striking down the law. Abortion clinics have filed a federal lawsuit against the partial-birth ban . . . .”)

54 In addition to his record with respect to reproductive choice and “sodomy” laws, Pryor also defended an Alabama statute that prohibited the sale of devices “designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.” Kimberly Mills, “Alabama Legislature’s Ban on Sex Devices Violates Civil Rights,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Feb. 24, 1999). When a number of individuals who used such devices filed suit in federal court challenging this law as a violation of their right to privacy and to personal autonomy, Pryor contended that the legislators were within their rights “to address what they perceived to be a problem.” Id. The court struck down the law, holding that it “impose[d] a significant burden on the right of married and unmarried persons to sexual privacy. . . .” Williams v. Pryor, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1298 (N.D. Ala. 2002). The court also noted that “the Attorney General has failed to offer even one state interest for the challenged statute, much less a compelling state interest. Further, the Attorney General has not attempted to prove that the statute is narrowly tailored to meet those phantom interests.” Id. at 1300. An appeal by the state is pending.

55 “Do Not Uncork the Champagne Yet.”

56 Commencement Speech by Attorney General Bill Pryor to the 1997 McGill-Toolen Graduating Class, http://www.ago.state.al.us/speeches.cfm?Item=Single&Case=31 (visited June 5, 2003) (hereafter “McGill-Toolen Speech”). Pryor expressed the same sentiments in another 1997 speech, Baccalaureate Speech of Attorney General Bill Pryor to the 1997 Independent Methodist School Graduating Class.

57 McGill-Toolen Speech.

58 Moore’s explanation as to why he did not invite non-Christians to offer the prayers was: “‘We are not a nation founded upon the Hindu god or Buddha.’” “Rally Backs Judge’s Display of Ten Commandments,” Dallas Morning News (Apr. 13, 1997).

59 “Court Refuses to Rehear Commandments Case,” Associated Press (Apr. 10, 1998).

60 See, e.g., Bill Poovey, “Judges Battle Over Courtroom Display of the Ten Commandments,” Associated Press (Feb. 11, 1997).

61 “Rally Backs Judge’s Display of Ten Commandments,” Dallas Morning News (Apr. 13, 1997).

62 See Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1294 (N.D. Ala. 2002), appeal pending.

63 Eddie Curran, “Legal Fees in Commandments Case Could Reach $1 Million,” Mobile Register (May 2, 2003).

64Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1294.

65 Id.

66 Id.

67 Id.

68 Even the Liberty Counsel, a religious right legal organization, has recognized the problems with Moore’s monument, and hopes the case does not get to the Supreme Court. “The Montgomery monument, and Moore’s actions, are too overtly religious, and as such, the case could damage the movement to present religious symbols in government buildings should the U.S. Supreme Court choose to consider it,” a Liberty Counsel attorney told the press. “Pro-Moore Rally Planned,” Associated Press (Dec. 15, 2002).

69 The appellate decisions are Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292 (7th Cir. 2000); Adland v. Russ, 307 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2002).

70 City of Elkhart v. Books, 532 U.S. 1058 (2001); Russ v. Adland, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 3264 (Apr. 28, 2003).

71 Brief for the States of Alabama, et al. in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, City of Elkhart v. Books, at 2-3.

72 Bill Pryor, Attorney General, “Pryor Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Stop Removal of Ten Commandments From Indiana City Building,” News Release (April 13, 2001).

73 The Court also noted that a report of the United States Department of Justice had found “Alabama’s systematic use of the hitching post to be improper corporal punishment.” 536 U.S. at 737.

74 News Release, Statement of Attorney General Bill Pryor Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Hope v. Pelzer (June 27, 2002), http://www.ago.state.al.us/news_template.cfm?Record_ID=683
(visited May 12, 2003). In a National Public Radio interview about the case on the day it was argued Pryor said, “[a]n Alabama prison is not a fun place. It is not a place where you want to return.” NPR: Morning Edition (Apr. 17, 2002).

75 Ashley Estes, “Court Blocks Execution, May Review Use of Alabama Electric Chair,” Associated Press (Feb. 5, 2000).

76 Id. The Court, with four justices disagreeing, subsequently declined to hear the case and lifted the stay of execution. In re Robert Lee Tarver, 528 U.S. 1152 (Feb. 22, 2000).
77 Ashley Estes, “Court Blocks Execution, May Review Use of Alabama Electric Chair,” Associated Press (Feb. 5, 2000). In sharp contrast, the Georgia Supreme Court, in a 2001 ruling holding that electrocution is unconstitutional, stated that “death by electrocution involves more than the ‘mere extinguishment of life’ . . . and inflicts purposeless physical violence and needless mutilation that makes no measurable contribution to accepted goals of punishment. . . Accordingly, we hold that death by electrocution, with its specter of excruciating pain and its certainty of cooked brains and blistered bodies, violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment . . . .” Dawson v. State, 554 S.E.2d 137, 143-44 (Ga. 2001) (citations omitted).

78 Phillip Rawls, “AG, Governor Back Lethal Injection as Fallback,” Associated Press (Feb. 2, 2000).

79 Ashley Estes, “Court Blocks Execution, May Review Use of Alabama Electric Chair,” Associated Press (Feb. 5, 2000) (emphasis added).

80 Bob Johnson, “Governor Signs Law Changing to Lethal Injection,” Associated Press (Apr. 25, 2002).

81 Bill Pryor, Attorney General of Alabama, Remarks to the Alabama State Bar Board of Bar Commissioners Regarding the Moratorium Issue (Oct. 27, 2000), http://www.ago.state.al.us/speeches.cfm?Item=Single&Case=38 (visited June 5, 2003).

82 See e.g., Attorney General of Alabama, “What Hath the MSA Wrought? The Consequences of the State Tobacco Litigation,” Mississippi Bar Litigation and General Practice Session Annual Meeting (July 13, 2001)

83 See e.g., “Alabama Would Get Less From National Settlement Than States That Sued and Settled Individually,” Associated Press (Oct. 17, 1998). As of Oct. 1998, Alabama was “among eight states that [had] refused to sue tobacco companies to recover tobacco-related health costs.” Id.

84 “The Rule of Law and the Tobacco Settlement,” Remarks of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor before the Policy Forum of the Cato Institute (Aug. 5, 1997), http://www.ago.state.al.us/speeches.cfm?Item=Single&Case=19 (visited June 5, 2003).

85 Bill Pryor, “Litigators’ Smoke Screen,” Wall Street Journal (Apr. 7, 1997).

86 Id. (emphasis added).

87 Transcript, The Cato Institute Sponsors a News Conference on the Tobacco Settlement (Aug. 5, 1997).

88 Pryor’s exchange with Vacco was testy enough to be reported on by the Associated Press: “Attorney General Bill Pryor’s contention that the national tobacco litigation was started by liberal attorneys general drew fire from New York’s top prosecutor, a Republican like Pryor. New York Attorney General Dennis Vacco bristled at Pryor’s comment, saying the tobacco agreement is conservative because it is an example of states rising up to settle a nationwide health problem.” “Alabama AG’s Tobacco Views Clash With New York Prosecutor,” Associated Press (Aug. 6, 1997).

89 Garry Mitchell, “University’s Lawyers Say AG Has No Authority To Block Liggett Suit,” Associated Press (May 9, 1997). See University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Company, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12379 (S.D. Ala. 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999).

90Brian Cabell, “Alabama Attorney General Not Suing Tobacco Industry,” CNNfn: Before Hours (May 27, 1997).

91According to the press, three weeks after Pryor blocked Siegelman’s suit, seven tobacco lobbyists helped host a fundraiser for Pryor in Washington, D.C., and four of them made their own contributions to his campaign. See David Pace, “Tobacco Lobbyists Help Host Campaign Fund-raiser for Alabama Attorney General,” Associated Press (Oct. 21, 1997); Bill Poovey, “Pryor, Baker Say No Reason For Taxpayers to Know Yet About Tobacco Talks,” Associated Press (July 22, 1998).

92In a 1998 speech, Senator Richard Shelby said that “he would have sued, if the decision had been his.” “Alabama Would Get Less From National Settlement Than States That Sued and Settled Individually,” Associated Press (Oct. 17, 1998).

93 See Bill Pryor, Attorney General, “Pryor Received N.R.A. Institute’s Highest Honor,” News Release (May 21, 2001).

94Bill Pryor, “Trial Lawyers Target Rule of Law,” Atlanta Journal Constitution (Jan. 13, 1999).

95 “‘The Smoking Gun’ – The Next Case of Lawsuit Abuse,” Address of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to the American Shooting Sports Council, Annual Convention (Feb. 1, 1999). In 2001, Pryor received the NRA’s Harlon B. Carter Legislative Achievement Award, “the highest tribute conferred by the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action.” News Release, Bill Pryor, Attorney General, May 21, 2001. In presenting Pryor with this award, the NRA stated: “General Pryor has launched a comprehensive program of Second Amendment advocacy . . . the reach of which has extended far beyond the borders of his own state. General Pryor has taken a leading role in fighting the frivolous municipal lawsuits against the firearm industry.” Id. Pryor’s release stated that “[i]n Alabama, Pryor helped draft and lobbied for passage of laws that provide the firearms industry immunity from municipal lawsuits, preempted local gun control ordinances, and repealed the two-day waiting period for handgun purchases.” Id.

96 “Curbing the Abuses of Government Lawsuits Against Industries,” Presentation by Bill Pryor, Attorney General of Alabama, Civil Justice Reform Group Steering Committee (Dec. 8, 1999) (emphasis added), http://www.ago.state.al.us/speeches.cfm?Item=Single&Case=16 (visited June 5, 2003).

97George Lardner, Jr. and Susan Schmidt, “GOP Attorneys General Solicit Large Contributions From Corporations that Are Embroiled in Lawsuits,” Washington Post (Mar. 30, 2000).

98Robert Tanner, “Questions Raised as Power of Attorneys General Grows,” Houston Chronicle (July 22, 2001).

99George Lardner, Jr. and Susan Schmidt, “GOP Attorneys General Solicit Large Contributions From Corporations that Are Embroiled in Lawsuits,” Washington Post (Mar. 30, 2000).

100 “Montgomery Leaves Group for GOP Attorneys General,” Columbus Dispatch (Apr. 4, 2000).

101Robert Tanner, “Questions Raised as Power of Attorneys General Grows,” Houston Chronicle (July 22, 2001).

102 http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01june/june01corp2.html (visited June 6, 2003).

103 “A.G. Pryor Elected Chairman of Republic Attorneys General Association,” Associated Press (Mar. 8, 2001).

104 Pryor expressed the same sentiments to the American Tort Reform Association last year. Remarks of Attorney General Bill Pryor at the 2002 Annual Membership Meeting of the American Tort Reform Association (Mar. 14, 2002).

105 “Judicial Activism: Assessing the Impact,” Testimony of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism & Property Rights (July 15, 1997).

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious