Baseless attacks on the Alliance Defending Freedom won’t help fix real Idaho issues | Opinion

Public discourse isn’t what it used to be.

In more civilized days, a state’s decision to craft laws and defend them in court — all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court — would have gained headlines, to be sure. But those stories would have universally focused on the issues, discussing the public policy enacted and the underlying legal arguments for nationally consequential rulings.

It looks like those days are gone. Now, instead of carefully considering laws and court decisions, and debating different viewpoints in the public square, far too many would-be legal commentators settle for distraction through baseless character assassinations. Sadly, that’s what readers of the Idaho Statesman encountered in a recent commentary that former candidate for state attorney general Tom Arkoosh penned.

The U.S. Supreme Court docket currently includes two cases where Idaho is defending state laws duly enacted by the people and their elected representatives. In Idaho v. United States, the state seeks to guard against the Biden administration’s overt attempt to override Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which protects women and unborn children by preventing doctors from performing abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

And in Labrador v. Poe, the state is defending its Vulnerable Child Protection Act, which protects children from so-called transition drugs and procedures. The law supports children’s natural biological development by limiting procedures — like puberty-blocking drugs and body-altering surgeries — that harm children diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Activists have sued the state, which is now asking the nation’s high court to narrow a lower court’s order to cover only the challengers and allow Idaho to otherwise enforce its law and protect children while the case continues. Even the activists concede that some of the procedures the court order allows are inappropriate for kids.

Idaho’s position in both of these cases enjoys broad support from a wide range of respected authorities in the legal, policy and medical fields. That they are being contested by those who hold opposing ideological views should surprise no one. Likewise, that a state attorney general’s office would defend the people’s laws isn’t exactly shocking; after all, that’s the attorney general’s job.

Yet, to Arkoosh, these mundane facts are scandalous. In his world, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s decision to defend his state’s laws — and specifically, to enlist the help of two successful Supreme Court legal organizations — is somehow harming Idahoans.

Rather than debating the legislature’s policy choices or the legal arguments Labrador is making, Arkoosh levels the wildly untethered assertion that Idaho has somehow yielded its sovereignty by partnering with respected Supreme Court advocate Alliance Defending Freedom — my employer — to help defend Idaho’s laws. For those who are even remotely familiar with the workings of attorney general offices, that assertion is laughable.

As the former solicitor general for the state of Michigan, I can say from experience that it’s common practice for attorneys general to hire outside legal experts for litigation on all manner of cases. And if that expertise costs taxpayers little or no money, so much the better.

In fact, when Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison faced a legislative attempt to deny his office the ability to retain outside counsel two years ago, he opposed the effort by pointing to the “millions of dollars” his state saves through pro-bono attorneys. That Alliance Defending Freedom does not charge for the services it provides is something most taxpayers would celebrate.

This brings us to the real crux of Arkoosh’s complaints. Rather than debating the wisdom of Idaho’s laws or the legal arguments the state advances, he launches an ad hominem attack on Alliance Defending Freedom. Relying entirely on the highly discredited, deeply partisan Southern Poverty Law Center, Arkoosh mimics a recent MSNBC news segment by demeaning mainstream American views on the dignity of life and God-given freedoms as “Christian Nationalism.” That’s ridiculous.

Even those who generally support the SPLC’s work publicly disagree with its inclusion of ADF on the so-called “hate map.” That includes former American Civil Liberties Union President Nadine Strossen, who refers to ADF as a “valuable ally on important issues of public concern.”

Others are more blunt, including Elon Musk, who recently called the SPLC a “scam” — the same word former SPLC staffer Bob Moser used to describe the organization in a lengthy New Yorker piece in 2019.

In fact, ADF has won 15 victories at the Supreme Court since just 2011. These wins, in addition to the hundreds of legal successes ADF has achieved in lower courts over the years, protect foundational freedoms like free speech and religious liberty for every American, regardless of their beliefs — including Arkoosh.

We can do better than resorting to baseless attacks and smear tactics. Let’s get back to debating the merits of important public issues rather than mudslinging. And let’s be thankful that, as Americans, we can see these matters through to their proper conclusion in our court system, including at the Supreme Court itself.