Arizona GOP Chair Kelli Ward Takes Jan. 6 Subpoena Fight To SCOTUS. Justice Roberts, You Up?

Maybe while she's in town, she can reinstate Trump.

Our old buddy Chemtrail Kelli is back to stink up the Supreme Court with her distinctive perfume, Eau de Crazy Eyes. And no, before you ask, it's not Designer Imposters. Our girl Kelli is nothing if not the real deal .

Longtime readers of this mommyblog will remember Ward as the former Arizona state senator who parlayed losing the 2018 Senate primary to that reject Martha McSally into chairmanship of the entire Arizona GOP. From whence she commenced her fatwa against dissident squishes like Jeff Flake, Cindy McCain, and sitting Republican Governor Doug Ducey. Because if thine right eye offends thee by not seeing that Communist Biden stole the election using Chinese Bluetooth thermostats, then PLUCK IT OUT AND CAST IT FROM THEE. So sayeth the Lord, Amen.

But Ward did more than ruin the Arizona GOP and hasten the blueing of the Grand Canyon State. Because that busy bee was deeply involved in the cosplay electors scheme to substitute a bunch of weirdos for the duly selected Biden electors chosen by voters. In fact, she and her husband Michael were two of the 14 fake electors who signed the fraudulent electoral certificate submitted to the National Archives as if it were the real deal.

And that's how the Wards found themselves on the pointy end of subpoenas from the House January 6 Select Committee and the grand jury empaneled to investigate the events leading up to the attack on Congress on January 6, 2021. It's also the reason T Mobile got a subpoena for their cell phone metadata from the committee — a subpoena which the Wards immediately filed a federal lawsuit to block.

The suit was dismissed by the trial court, which found that the committee had a valid legislative purpose and was acting within the scope of its remit. A divided Ninth Circuit panel agreed, with the majority rejecting Ward's protest that she was effectively immune from congressional process because, as head of the state party, any disclosure of her communications would violate the First Amendment and chill her right of association.

"Here, there is little to suggest that disclosing Ward’s phone records to the Committee will affect protected associational activity," they wrote , adding that "The investigation, after all, is not about Ward’s politics; it is about her involvement in the events leading up to the January 6 attack, and it seeks to uncover those with whom she communicated in connection with those events. That some of the people with whom Ward communicated may be members of a political party does not establish that the subpoena is likely to reveal 'sensitive information about [the party’s] members and supporters.'”

In a parenthetical demonstrating the logical conclusion for providing First Amendment protection to any person engaged in political activity and also crimes , the majority snarked that "Narcotics traffickers, or anyone else who might face such subpoenas, would be well advised to make at least a few calls to their preferred political party."

But Judge Sandra Ikuta, one of the Ninth Circuit's most conservative jurists, found that "the only plausible explanation for the Committee’s interest in Ward’s phone records is that they reveal information about other Party members," and concluded that "such identifying information may expose these members to congressional investigation, perhaps federal criminal investigation, and related public criticism."

(Oh, not getting investigated for crimes is a cognizable legal interest now for conservatives? Duly noted!)

Ward filed an emergency petition to the Supreme Court, urging it to adopt Judge Ikuta's reasoning. She also engaged in some extra flimflammery, conflating a legislative investigation with police banging on the door of political dissidents:

In a case like this the punishment is the process; the harm comes from the fear that your views will be exposed, that you can be the next person to expect a knock on your door from government investigators, and that you may be required to face the disastrous personal and financial consequences of having to retain counsel and appear before the Committee to answer for your political affiliations and opinions. This sets a terrible precedent for the future of public participation in American politics.

Ward even went so far as to liken herself to a reporter protecting her sources: "The telephone and text message records of the state chair of a major political party should enjoy at least as much First Amendment protection as the identities of a journalist’s confidential sources."

Lest we forget here, Ward and her husband appear to have participated in a crime by preparing and signing a fraudulent government document presenting themselves as legitimate electors. And Ward herself propagated lies about a stolen election which led a violent mob to attempt to overthrow the government. There's no First Amendment right to hide the identities of your criminal confederates, and not a single court has found that inquiring into that Big Lie is outside Congress's remit.

As the majority wrote at the Ninth Circuit:

Because there is no indication that the compelled disclosure in this case would deter protected associational activity, the exacting scrutiny standard does not apply. But even if that standard did apply, this subpoena would satisfy it. The subpoena is substantially related to the important government interest in investigating the causes of the January 6 attack and protecting future elections from similar threats.

Nonetheless, Justice Elena Kagan, who presides over the Ninth Circuit, issued an administrative stay last night and ordered the committee to respond on Friday to Ward's petition. Presumably she's referring the matter to the wider court, as Justice Clarence Thomas did earlier this week with Lindsey Graham's request to stay his testimony to the grand jury in Georgia.

It seems pretty unlikely that there are five votes to weigh in on either of these issues, particularly since the House January 6 Select Committee is likely to expire with this Congress and give way to 24/7 hearings on Hunter Biden's drug problems. But with this fakakta Supreme Court, who the hell even knows?

[ Ward v. Thompson , SCOTUS Docket]

Follow Liz Dye on Twitter!

Click the widget to keep your Wonkette ad-free and feisty. And if you're ordering from Amazon, use this link, because reasons .