Update on the Wilsons' civil lawsuit

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE DEFENDANTS

Absolute Immunity
Defendant Cheney's Argument:Vice President Cheney claims that the vice president, like the president, is absolutely immune from all lawsuits stemming from any action he may have taken while in office.

The Wilsons' Response:
Absolute immunity does not extend to the vice president. The Supreme Court has afforded only the president absolute immunity from all civil lawsuits, finding that private lawsuits would distract the president from his duties and raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While history and the U.S. Constitution support absolute immunity for the president, there is no precedent for extending absolute immunity to the vice president.

Qualified Immunity

The Defendants' Argument:
All defendants, with the support of the United States government, claim that they enjoy qualified immunity -- meaning that although they may not be immune from all lawsuits like the president -- they cannot be sued for violating the Wilsons' constitutional rights. According to the defendants, they could not have known that when they conspired to create a whispering campaign against the Wilsons, which involved disclosing Valerie's status as a covert CIA operative, they were violating the Wilsons' rights.

The Wilsons' Response:
None of the defendants is entitled to qualified immunity. They all knew that what they were doing was wrong and they went ahead anyway, with no regard for the predictable consequences.

First Amendment Violation

The Defendants' Argument:
Each of the four defendants claims that Joe Wilson's First Amendment right to freedom of speech was not violated because his ability to speak was not "chilled."

The Wilsons’ Response:
Government officials disclosing Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA operative in direct retaliation for Joe Wilson's speech is a violation of his First Amendment rights. The officials named in the suit pro-actively engaged in an effort to punish Joe Wilson for telling the public the truth about the Bush administration's justification for going to war with Iraq.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Wilsons' opposition to the defendants' motions to dismiss is due on January 16, 2007. Then, the defendants' will have the opportunity to file reply briefs by February 15, 2007. Sometime thereafter, U.S. District Court Judge John Bates will schedule an oral argument, during which the judge has the chance to question the lawyers about their arguments. A decision will be expected sometime in the spring, but it is likely that the judge's decision will then be appealed.