An Ohio court recently rejected a request from a Haitian group’s request to criminally charge former President Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, over the campaign’s comments regarding Haitian migrants in the town of Springfield, Ohio. The court has reportedly denied requests from the group to have arrest warrants issued for Trump and Vance.
Trump initially sparked backlash from the left after calling out alleged migrant activity in Springfield that involved the eating of cats and other animals. Vance has defended these claims, maintaining that he is representing the concerns of his constituents as an Ohio senator. Springfield, a town of 60,000, has received a massive influx of approximately 20,000 migrants since 2021.
The Haitian group’s attorney, Subodh Chandra of the Cleveland-based Chandra Law Firm, claimed, “Their persistence and relentlessness, even in the face of the governor and the mayor saying this is false, that shows intent.” However, it has been pointed out by Vance that just because town officials say there is no evidence to corroborate the claims doesn’t necessarily mean they are not true. “It’s knowing, willful flouting of criminal law,” the attorney continued.
Following the legal request to issue arrest warrants for Trump and Vance, the Ohio court rejected the move and deferred to the case to county prosecutors. “The conclusion of whether the evidence and causation necessary for probable cause exists to commence a prosecution of the alleged offenses is best left in the investigatory hands of the prosecution,” the judges stated in their decision.
“The presidential election is less than 35 days away. The issue of immigration is contentious,” the ruling added. “Due to the proximity of the election, and the contentiousness concerning the immigration policies of both candidates, the Court cannot automatically presume the good faith nature of the affidavits,” the decision continued.
The Haitian Bridge Alliance claimed that Trump’s and Vance’s claims cannot be protected under free speech as they disrupted public services. “Trump and Vance engaged in a purposeful pattern of conduct to impede public services in Springfield. Despite seeing that Springfield was suffering from repeated bomb threats, evacuations, hospital lockdowns, necessity of state-trooper deployment, and closures of government buildings, they continued to double, triple, and quadruple down on their false claims,” the affidavit read.
The group continued, “Trump’s and Vance’s refusals to stop, despite serious chaos they were inflicting and the governor’s and mayor’s pleas, highlights their criminal purpose in spreading these lies. The chaos caused was the purpose, and the First Amendment affords no protection for that campaign of criminal conduct.”
"*" indicates required fields
Judge Stephen Schumaker offered a concurring opinion that the case does not require a hearing contrary to the claims of Chandra. “The Court acknowledges the difficulties of proving a negative. There is significant difference however, between stating that there are no verifiable reports that a statement is true and proof and/or probable cause that a statement is false,” Schumaker claimed. “This Judge has tremendous respect for the officials making the above and similar statements but if any of the officials voiced the opinion that the statements at issue were false, those statements are in the form of opinion.”
Watch a video of Vance defending the Haitian migrant claims below: