New Lawsuit Seeks to Force Kellyanne Conway to Face Hatch Act Complaint
The lawsuit claims the special counsel has adopted a policy of no longer filing complaints for non-Senate confirmed executive branch officials' Hatch Act violations.
December 17, 2019 at 01:54 PM
4 minute read
The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to compel special counsel Henry Kerner and his office to file a complaint against top Trump White House aide Kellyanne Conway for Hatch Act violations.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claims the special counsel has adopted a policy of no longer filing complaints with the Merit Systems Protection Board for non-Senate confirmed executive branch officials' Hatch Act violations.
The MSPB, a quasi-judicial agency, has the power to take action against federal employees who are found to have violated the act, which blocks them from certain political activities in their capacity as federal government officials.
Tuesday's complaint alleges that OSC policy goes against the U.S. code, which says that when the special counsel finds a non-Senate confirmed official has committed a Hatch Act violation, that finding is then handed over to the MSPB.
Kerner referred his office's findings on Conway, who is not Senate-confirmed, to President Donald Trump for further action in June 2019, and recommended that Conway be removed from her White House job for her Hatch Act violations. Trump refused to follow that guidance, and defended her.
The watchdog said in Tuesday's complaint that the conditions for a MSPB complaint "are indisputably met in Conway's case."
And the lawsuit alleges Conway has continued to violate the Hatch Act since the OSC made its findings, "no less than 60 times (and counting)."
"The upshot is that OSC's inaction will, absent judicial relief, preclude the Hatch Act allegations that were the subject of CREW's complaints (and deemed meritorious by OSC) from ever being brought to the attention of MSPB, the body statutorily charged with adjudicating Hatch Act violations and taking appropriate disciplinary action," Tuesday's complaint reads.
"Moreover, so long as OSC continues to follow its nonenforcement policy, CREW cannot rely on the agency to institute legally-mandated MSPB proceedings in response to future CREW Hatch Act complaints against non-Senate-confirmed presidential appointees, including Conway."
It's unclear if a court will agree it has the authority to order a change in the special counsel's policy, as judges have raised questions about how far the judiciary can reach into the internal actions of federal agencies. The Trump administration is all but certain to raise a similar point in opposing this complaint.
An OSC spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.
Kerner's office found that Conway violated the Hatch Act "by disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity during television interviews and on social media."
"As a highly visible member of the administration, Ms. Conway's violations, if left unpunished, send a message to all federal employees that they need not abide by the Hatch Act's restrictions," Kerner wrote in a letter to Trump at the time. "Her actions erode the principal foundation of our democratic system—the rule of law."
The special counsel last year also found that Conway had twice violated the Hatch Act by defending then-GOP Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore while speaking on the White House lawn.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
4 minute readSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readPentagon Settles Suit Seeking to Clear Records of Service Members Discharged for Being LGBTQ
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Courts, Lawyers Press On With Business as SoCal Wildfires Rage
- 2Florida, a Political Epicenter, Is the Site of Brownstein Hyatt's 13th Office
- 3Law Firms Close Southern California Offices Amid Devastating Wildfires
- 4Lawsuit alleges racial and gender discrimination led to an Air Force contractor's death at California airfield
- 5Holland & Knight Picks Up 8 Private Wealth Lawyers in Los Angeles
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250