Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in June 2025

Deposing Labrador

June 9, 2025

Three years ago, I joined five other former Idaho Attorneys General in describing that important position as “the state’s family lawyer” because the AG is legally obligated to “perform all legal services for the state.” The AG should scrupulously comply with all legal, ethical and professional standards. Disrespect of any of those standards is detrimental to the legal profession and erodes public confidence in the rule of law.

It has been shocking to observe the repeated disrespect for the law exhibited by Attorney General Labrador. The latest example is his effort to escape accountability for firing a competent and reputable Deputy Attorney General (DAG) in March of 2023. The DAG, Daphne Huang, was an attorney for the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) at the time and ethically required to act in that client’s best interests. IDHW was also Labrador’s client.

Labrador was displeased with IDHW’s administration of a federal grant program and made it clear to Huang that she needed to side with him and against her client. Huang refused, just as any ethical lawyer would, and was fired. She filed a wrongful termination suit against Labrador later that year. The case is currently being litigated.

When I started law practice in the early 1970s, Idaho had just implemented new “discovery” rules. Before that, lawyers often went into trial not knowing what evidence might be produced by the other side. The new rules gave lawyers the ability to discover details about an opponent’s case before trial. An important tool is the deposition, where an attorney can take live, recorded testimony of an opponent and his or her witnesses.

Labrador‘s deposition was scheduled by Huang’s attorneys for February 14 of this year. He failed to appear for the deposition and did not try to get it put off beforehand, as a reputable lawyer would have done. That is a serious breach of professionalism and court rules. Labrador then made the shocking claim that he should not have to give his testimony. The judge handling the case saw it otherwise, as any competent lawyer would have predicted. The judge observed that Labrador appeared to be the one who made the decision to fire Huang and that he had to make himself available for a deposition. The judge also required the AG’s office to pay Huang’s attorney fees and expenses for his refusal to be deposed, so taxpayers will have to shoulder that cost.

Labrador’s impudent response to the judge’s ruling was that “high-ranking government officials” should be shielded “from precisely this type of litigation-driven harassment.” Shame on the judge for failing to recognize the elevated status of high potentates like Labrador. Apparently, the judge did not realize that Labrador has been ranked highly, particularly by companies he might be called upon to regulate, as shown by the luxury junket to Rome that he was treated to in April. This type of luxury junket is supported both by taxpayers and corporate interests.

Rather than come back to Earth and testify about his reasons for firing Huang, Labrador again sought to be excused from having to submit to the indignity of explaining why he fired a competent, honest DAG for refusing to commit a serious breach of legal ethics. His attorney once again argued to the judge that Labrador should be protected from being deposed because of his important status. The argument did not work any better the second time around. Labrador’s state-paid lawyer has requested the judge’s permission to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court.

This kind of conduct is beneath the office of Attorney General. Instead of claiming elevated status or exemption from procedures designed to arrive at the truth of a matter, the AG’s behavior should be exemplary, both in word and deed. We would expect that of our private lawyer and the public should demand it from the state’s family lawyer.

 

The unlikely sanctuaries

The unlikely sanctuaries

June 8, 2025

If you were to imagine local places in this country that obstruct federal law, you might guess that map would look different depending on what kind of administration — Republican or Democratic, liberal or conservative — is in power in Washington.

The Trump administration delivered a comprehensive list of more than 500 such places last week. And for Oregon, at least, it doesn’t look the way you would expect.

The list grew out of an executive order from President Donald Trump on April 28 ordering that “the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall notify each sanctuary jurisdiction regarding its defiance of Federal immigration law enforcement and any potential violations of Federal criminal law.” Those jurisdictions could mean states, counties and cities. There is no posted definition of what it takes to qualify as a sanctuary jurisdiction.

The order was not simply intended as an accusation but also a requirement that federal officials “identify appropriate Federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, including grants and contracts, for suspension or termination, as appropriate.” Funds would be cut off, possibly including disaster relief money, and legal action against the local entities would be pursued.”

That could mean local governments on a massive scale could see federal funds cut off.

No sort of appeal process was indicated, though presumably court action will be involved.

Just a day later on May 28, the list of offending jurisdictions was released by the agencies. “These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens,” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said.

So what is a “sanctuary city” (or other jurisdiction)? In a general sense, there is no such thing, since federal immigration law applies everywhere in the country, and federal officials (such as those in ICE) are free to enforce it anywhere. The level of local support for those operations varies, though. Oregon state law, for instance (like that of many other states), bars state and local officials from inquiring about, or blocking services based on immigration status. It does not stop federal enforcement of the law.

Still, you can imagine the state of Oregon overall, and Portland specifically, would be on a “sanctuary city” list, and they are. On January 21, new Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said, “Our state and local leaders are committed to ensuring that no one is treated unfairly because of their immigration status. The Sanctuary Promise Act mandates that local law enforcement document any federal demands for immigration enforcement and ensures our state laws are followed.”

On April 28 he reiterated, “Portland stands unwavering in its commitment to sanctuary policies, rooted in the belief that every resident, including immigrants, deserves dignity, respect, and protection. The city of Portland fully complies with all applicable federal and state laws and will not obstruct lawful federal enforcement operations. Importantly, our police officers will not be used as agents of ICE.”

We’ll put aside the idea — which in normal times would govern public spending but today apparently does not — for the moment that local political preferences or views on issues never should be the basis for deciding who receives the federal funds that, after all, we all pay into.

The other three cities on the list – Eugene, Beaverton, and Hood River – also are no particular surprise.

The counties, and 15 of them are listed, are another matter.

A few of these, like Multnomah (Portland), Lane (Eugene) and Washington (Beaverton and Hillsboro), would be expected. These are deep blue places where most of the voters and elected officials deeply oppose the Trump administration and many of its works, not least its immigration-related actions. Lincoln and Clatsop counties also voted against Trump in 2024, so there’s some political consistency in their inclusion as well.

For whatever reason, Clackamas, Deschutes, Benton and Hood River, all Democratic in last year’s presidential election, were left off the list. (Officials in those counties, Benton especially, may be wondering why.)

But the list also includes Columbia County (Trump 55%), Harney County (Trump 77.7%), Klamath County (Trump 69.5%), Lake County (Trump 81.2%), Linn County, Marion County, Tillamook County, Umatilla County, Union County and Yamhill County. All of these voted for Trump last year, some of them by super-landslide majorities.

What exactly did they do to put the federal bullseye on their backs? They understandably could be asking about this in bewilderment and anger.

This is not unique to Oregon. In Washington state, where the politics and policies in this are similar to Oregon, all but three of the state’s 39 countries were put on the black list.

Sounds like another round of lawsuits against the Trump Administration teed up for the office of Attorney General Dan Rayfield.

Oh, wait: On June 1 the Department of Homeland Security retracted its list of sanctuary locations, after an uproar from local and state officials and groups around the country.

It did not say what actions it plans to take next.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Dice not rolled

Dice not rolled

June 6, 2025

The risk-taking culture of gambling gets a lot of attention these days far from the floors of any casino: Not only in business - where a willingness to take a risk is an ordinary part of life, at least to a point - but in many other sectors, including government.

Zero risk-taking can lead to stagnation, but too much of it can lead to catastrophe, and the trick is in navigating the difference.

Idaho has just managed to do that, in the now averted meshing of the University of Idaho with the University of Phoenix.

In this case, it was leadership at the Idaho institution -- its top executives and its governing board -- who were willing to throw all the chips in the pot. It was a whole lot of other people, all over the map politically, socially and economically, who effectively blocked the play.

Here’s one of those cases where the broader impulse turned out to be the voice of wisdom.

The story began about two years ago with negotiations between UI and the sometimes-controversial U of Phoenix, with the aim of Idaho’s state-run land grant institution taking over the big private higher education institution. (What follows is a very short summary; you can find an excellent review of the whole story by Kevin Richert on the Idaho Ed News website.)

Verbs, even the use of “taking over,” are awfully dicey here. In May 2023, after initial negotiations at UI, the state Board of Education gave the UP deal the green light. As the Ed News said, “Thursday’s State Board vote represents an early milestone in a dizzying, complicated and costly process — one that came to light barely 24 hours earlier.” But the exact nature of the relationship between the UI and UP - and implicitly between the state and the private company - never has seemed entirely clear. It didn’t look exactly like a buyout, and what that would mean in the case of a state buyer wasn’t obvious. The post-UP operation (which would be renamed) would be governed  by a board including state officials, but it wouldn’t apparently be a state board. Sort of. A massive bond sale was intended to underwrite the purchase, though the details of it (I always wondered who the big-time bond buyers would be) seemed murky too. How all these pieces would fit together over time never became obvious.

The university was no doubt in a mood to gamble. The anti-education political environment in the state, coupled with some dark atmospherics (the murder case involving four students killed at Moscow  more than two years ago for which a trial still is some ways off) were just two of the downer elements the university was facing. It needed, wanted, a win. The UP deal offered the prosport of turning Idaho’s university into a national player with tens of thousands of new (mainly online) students; you could at least imagine a university transformed, powerfully positioned for the future.

Against that, how many ways could things go bad? That’s what gave people nightmares, and the development of all kinds of dystopian scenarios. These came from all kinds of directions. State legislators from both ideological ends - less so those closer to the middle - raised concerns, and legislation intended to ease progress of the deal instead stayed blocked in the Statehouse. Negotiations gradually fell apart after that, more than a year ago, and the process has been on life support for months.

That’s by way of saying, the new announcement that talks have been suspended was expected, sooner or later.

Would the purchase, or whatever it was, necessarily have been a bad deal? Maybe not necessarily. But it would have been a big risk.

Just how lucky are you, University of Idaho?

Odds are, the university’s luck has held this time, just enough.

(image)

Spirit of giving

Spirit of giving

June 4, 2025

Evin Bask has 5 million reasons to be happy. Actually, 5.1 million reasons.

That was the dollar amount raised during the recent Idaho Gives campaign to help nonprofits and Bask has been beaming ever since. This was the first time that Idaho Gives exceeded $5 million in its 12 years of existence.

Bask’s title is “senior philanthropic impact director” for the Idaho Nonprofit Center/Idaho Community Foundation, which hosts Idaho Gives, so the annual campaign is a big part of her job. But charitable giving is an even bigger part of her life, starting with her childhood in Seattle.

Her first fundraising effort was selling banana bread to golfers. Her dad, Marty Bask, helped start a foundation in memory of a friend who died from cancer. The foundation, which operates today, offers a wide range of assistance to individuals and families impacted by cancer.

Enter Evin and her banana bread.

“My dad’s buddies were paying way too much for probably terrible banana bread, but that was my first introduction into giving,” she said. “I grew up in an environment where giving was a part of your life and a part of your community.” (Photo: Evin and her dad, 2000.)

I’m guessing that Evin underestimated the quality of her banana bread. She was using her grandma’s recipe, which is a winning formula to begin with. And to hungry golfers, there’s no such thing as “bad” banana bread. The golfers in Marty’s group could not resist buying from a cute little girl with an infectious smile.

But for Bask, that was the start of a career path. She attended Boise State University, where she received a degree in communications and a minor in nonprofits. Later, she received a master’s degree in business, with an emphasis in nonprofit management. Her career with the Idaho Nonprofit Center started with an internship 10 years ago.

Her job now is to ensure that nonprofits in the Gem State have the resources they need and, of course, to help them prepare for the Idaho Gives campaign – Idaho’s Super Bowl of charitable giving. As Bask sees it, the campaign is fitting to Idaho.

“The Idaho Gives campaign is what Idaho is all about. We are a low-government state, and that means people in the communities need to step in and help the nonprofit sector solve some of the problems, such as feeding the hungry and helping people who are homeless. You can enjoy the river, the trails and the arts – and so much of that is upheld by nonprofits,” she said.

“Something that I noticed when I moved here more than a decade ago (2013), Idaho has friendly people. They will look you in the eye and wave, if you are walking on the Greenbelt for going into buildings. These are the qualities that drew me to this state. Our communities take care of each other, and supporting nonprofits is a great way of doing that.”

Idaho Gives, which started in 2013, raised about $500,000 in its first year – “and we’ve added a couple of zeroes since then. Last year, we raised $4.3 million,” she said. “It tells me that Idahoans are generous people, and they recognize the needs that nonprofits are facing.”

The needs are amplified by cuts in federal funding, which takes away the “safety net” for people in need. Nonprofits have helped fill the void.

Idaho Gives is no small operation … 640 organizations are involved, and there are at least that many compelling stories. A lot of work goes into running the campaign (which runs from late April to early May), but that’s the fun part of Bask’s job. It’s a whirlwind of activities, parties and celebrations, with $45,000 in prizes given out.

“There is so much energy and buzz through that week,” Bask says. “People are excited to participate and support their favorite causes. This campaign really takes a village to host, and it is so much fun to see Idahoans get excited about giving away money. It’s also amazing to hear and see nonprofits supporting each other.”

Bask learned at an early age the value of good people working for noble causes. That’s the purpose behind Idaho Gives.

Chuck Malloy, a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist, is a writer with the Idaho Nonprofit Center/Idaho Community Foundation. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Uncertain times

June 3, 2025

As an elderly American, I have never felt so fearful for our nation's future -  so angry about the barrage of attacks on the rights and guarantees of citizenship we've enjoyed all our lives - so alarmed about whether our Republic, as we know it, will survive the constant onslaught of lies and determined ignorance being heaped upon it.

We are living in times none of us have faced before.  The continual drumbeat of lies and distortions about nearly everything dealing with our system of governance has taken a toll on our way of life such as we've never known.

There are millions of Americans who believe their ignorance of "facts" is as good as your knowledge of the same facts.  Their determination to distort reality is literally dominating the lives of millions of people.  Our foundations of freedom and quality of life are facing an onslaught not seen since the Civil War.

Pick a subject - any subject - and you'll find we're split nearly evenly down the middle.  Some elections end with no clear winner.  No definitive roadmap for the future.  Our two principal political parties seem ineffective.

The continued attacks on our system of elections by voices determined to guarantee they win, regardless of the expressed will of the majority, are weakening that basic freedom we've known for some 260 years.

Our President lies to us on a nearly daily basis.  Lies.  Makes up his own "truths" as he goes along.  In Congress, we have multiple caucuses splintering the body politic.  And splintering truth at times.  Even members of the President's Cabinet feed us fallacies.  Truth - real truth based on real facts - is sometimes hard to find.

One of the current "whoppers" is that Trump is going to somehow take control of Greenland.  Buy it.  Trade for it.  Steal it.  No one knows what "powers" he feels he can use to control events.  But, it's a subject - a lie - he proffers regularly.  Greenland belongs to Denmark and that's that!

Another is his repeated claim he'll run for the Presidency again when his current term ends in 45 months despite the Constitution's clause limiting occupancy of that office to two terms.

The latest distortions of truth are the - on-again - off-again tariffs he's wielding like favors to various countries.  He got up really close to implementing them this week.  But - he backed off.  Said he'd give it a respite of "90 days."  Except for China.

Now, Marco Rubio seems like a guy who's got his act together.  But, as Secretary of State, he's got to be going bonkers with all the tariff talk.  Which nation is "in."  Which nation is "out."  Who's paying and who isn't.  Marco needs a score keeper.

A national political administration with so many lies in its activities is bound to fail eventually.  But, a lot of damage can occur before that ultimate end.  In this case, we're talking about nearly another four years.

I think many of us have clung to the hope that some sort of "White Knight" would suddenly appear to set things straight.  Not gonna happen.  We're stuck with the lies and distortions.

We'll survive.  But, there's gonna be an awful lot of pain in the process.  The question of the day is - "what or who is next?"

 

“Big, beautiful” decline

June 2, 2025

Ever since the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, America has been admired around the world as a beacon of equality, freedom and opportunity. That admiration helped the United States become the world’s preeminent economic and military power over the last 80 years. While we have faced serious problems, like racial inequality, poverty and questionable wars, our elected representatives have usually been able to work together in an effort to address them. I fear that the era of America’s economic and moral dominance is now faltering and headed into a period of decline.

The so-called big, beautiful bill, which the US House of Representatives passed on May 22, is a symptom of the decline. It will greatly benefit the wealthy, while denying medical care, food assistance and other social safety-net programs to those on the lower income scale. The bill would substantially increase income inequality in the country and likely necessitate a $500 billion cut in Medicare spending. It is unfathomable that both Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson voted for the bill and that Governor Brad Little strongly supported its passage. Unless the Senate stops the bill in its tracks, the states will have to increase their budgetary outlays or let their voters go without vital services.

The national debt consequences of the bill are also of great concern. It should be remembered that Trump added $8.4 trillion to the national debt during his first term, more than any other US President. His big, beautiful bill would add an additional $3.8 trillion to the debt, which would raise the debt from its current $36.2 trillion to a whopping $40 trillion. That is a very serious problem in itself, but made substantially worse by other destructive actions he has taken that will seriously hinder the nation’s ability to deal with that massive debt.

The U.S. lives wildly beyond its means by borrowing against the future. Instead of requiring wealthy corporations and individuals to pay their fair share of taxes, we simply finance the deficits by issuing government bonds. Since the mid-1990s the GOP has forgotten that budget deficits can be prevented by raising adequate revenue. Thus, the national debt has ballooned from $5.6 trillion in 2000 to $36.2 trillion at the end of 2024.  About $8.5 trillion of the debt is held by foreign governments and investors. Foreigners have helped finance our debt because the U.S. has been regarded as a steady, reliable trustworthy nation. Our dollar is the coin of the international realm, and our government bonds have always been seen as a safe, reliable investment, particularly in times of international economic turmoil.

Donald Trump has shaken the world order by dumping on our friends and allies, including those closest to us–Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Japan and Korea.

He has disregarded trading relationships that have made America the leader of the free world. Trump’s latest threat to impose 50% tariffs on European nations seems designed to drive away our steadiest, most-reliable trading partners and military allies. His erratic and self-defeating tariff actions have shown America to be an unreliable partner. Our friends and allies have started forging stronger trading relationships among themselves and with China, our chief international adversary. This will reverberate against U.S. economic and security interests well into the future.

The bond market has become increasingly edgy about Trump’s erratic behavior. Investors are concerned about the safety of U.S. bonds, as evidenced by an increasing interest rate on our nation’s bonded indebtedness. The big, beautiful bill promises to trigger a crisis in the bond market. A well-regarded economist has observed: “The U.S. government bond markets are already shaky, long-term interest rates are rising, and it seems that foreign investors are fleeing the United States.” It is inconceivable that such chaos in the economic foundation of our country could have occurred since January.

America has long been regarded as the moral beacon of the world. As President Reagan put it in his Farewell Address--”The shining city upon a hill.” That perception is no longer the case. A recent survey discloses that America’s worldwide popularity has suffered a collapse since January. China is now regarded more favorably than the United States. Trump is viewed more negatively (58%) than Vladimir Putin (49%) and Xi Jinping (31%). Those dismal numbers foretell a decline in America’s ability to sustain its position as the premier moral, economic and military power in the world.

 

Oregon hatred and beyond

Oregon hatred and beyond

June 1, 2025

The 2000 report on hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center showed five hate groups active in Oregon. Its 2024 counterpart report just released this month found 24.

The difference is a matter of apples and oranges between these reports, which reflects a changing landscape in the area of extremism and hate groups. The SPLC’s traditional focus on hate groups — it started as an anti-racist tracker and researcher, after all — has been expanded to include groups more devoted to relatively extreme positions on various cultural and political issues.

Inclusion of anti-government groups, as distinct from groups more specifically focused on race, religion or other identifiers, has changed and even muddied the picture. Oregon’s experience — as the new report shows — suggests how.

Hate groups have been a factor in Oregon for a long time. The state’s early founders included many sympathizers with the Confederacy, and a century ago, Oregon was the number two state in the nation for Ku Klux Klan activity. It has been more notable in recent decades for pushback against bigotry, but hatred has not disappeared.

The SPLC long has been a national touchstone for tracking angry extremist groups. It said its current report “documented 1,371 hate and anti-government extremist groups across the United States. These groups use political, communication, violent, and online tactics to build strategies and training infrastructure to divide the country, demoralize people, and dismantle democracy.”

They’re not all exactly “hate groups,” however.

A minority of the groups were labeled as anti-immigrant (Oregonians for Immigration Reform), anti-LGBTQ (Pacific Justice Institute), “general hate” (Proud Boys and Rense Radio Network), Neo-Völkisch (Asatru Folk Assembly), and white nationalist (Active Club, Occidental Observer, Patriot Front). The Asatru Folk Assembly formerly was called the Viking Brotherhood.

But the real growth has been in the anti-government category.

The SPLC categorizes more than half of those listed in Oregon as anti-government (American Patriot Party, ASN Study Guide & University, American State Nationals, Constitution Party, Embassy of Heaven, Moms for Liberty Deschutes and Douglas, Oregon Parents Involved in Education, Oregon Statewide Jural Assembly, Parents Rights in Education Oregon, People’s Rights, State of Jefferson, American State Assembly, Timber Unity).

In 2000, of the five extremist groups listed for Oregon, three were neo-Nazi and two were racist-skinhead. In 2012, the nine groups cited for Oregon included white nationalist, Christian identity, Black separatist, neo-Nazi, racist skinhead and general hate, but none described as principally anti-government. Even as those groups steadily expanded over successive years, to 15 in 2021, no anti-government groups were listed. Since 2021, the number of groups other than “anti-government” has diminished or stabilized.

The makeup of the list changed dramatically in 2022, and has remained so. The previous roster of hate groups remained similar but diminished slightly, while in 2022 a large group of anti-government groups were added. You can find similar trends in other states.

SPLC said of that, “For the last several years, the conspiracy theories and claims made by anti-government groups have penetrated the mainstream, making extremism and fascism central to discourse and politics in the country. In 2021, the conspiratorial and dubious view of government was pervasive, as evidenced by the movement’s popular rhetoric on such issues as COVID-19 regulations, local school curriculum, the ‘Big Lie’ of voter fraud, and border security. These views largely continued in 2024, but with a marked and troubling rise in anti-government activity against inclusive public schools and the continued incorporation of white Christian nationalist ideas. The Jan. 6 insurrection was the most public moment for the movement since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.”

Many Oregonians will point out that however extreme some positions taken by some of these groups may be, many are largely political actors, such as Moms for Liberty, Timber Unity and the State of Jefferson. The Constitution Party is a political organization in Oregon and many other states, fields candidates and argues for policies recognizably within our political system.

One of those listed for Oregon in recent years is not an organization but rather a podcast, or bundle of podcasts, based at Ashland, called the Rense Radio Network.

There’s a clear argument for tracking extremist groups, which can in some cases make cause with hate groups. But they still aren’t quite the same thing.

So what should count as a hate group? When does a political stance — albeit a harder-edged and more extreme one — slide over into something that fits more neatly with hatred and bigotry?

And should the two be meshed together with only categorical distinctions?

Maybe the SPLC will come up with some new thoughts by the time its 2025 report comes out.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.