Roger Stone Threatens Lauren Windsor with SLAPP Lawsuit Over SCOTUS Recordings

Yet another MAGA attempt to stifle constitutionally protected speech.

Roger Stone’s recent Twitter threat to pursue legal action against journalist Lauren Windsor under Florida's two-party consent law for her secret recordings of Justices Alito and Roberts at a Supreme Court Historical Society event don’t hold water under scrutiny.

The odds seem stacked against any potential lawsuit despite his bloviating.

You see, Florida's anti-SLAPP law is in place to shield individuals from legal actions designed to stifle constitutionally protected speech on matters of public interest. And it's hard to argue that Windsor's recordings, which captured Alito's eyebrow-raising comments about steering the country back to a "place of godliness," don't fit that bill. As two of the nation's top judges, Alito and Roberts are undeniably public figures, and their expectations of privacy are significantly lower than your average Joes, especially when hobnobbing at high-profile events open to the public.

When it comes to the thorny issue of recording conversations, Florida stands apart from many other states with its strict two-party consent law. This means that everyone involved in a conversation must give an affirmative green light before hitting the record button. This is a surreptitious surveillance minefield that has tripped up many an unsuspecting participant, and it is at the heart of the controversy swirling around the secret recording of a Supreme Court Justice by a journalist.

On the surface, it might seem like an open-and-shut case. If Windsor captured the Justices’ words without their knowledge or consent, then she's clearly in violation of Florida's recording statute, right? Not so fast. The law has a few tricks up its sleeve that could come into play here.

First, there's the matter of the Justices’ statuses as public figures. When you're a big shot like a SCOTUS Justice, you can't expect the same level of privacy as the average Joe. If the conversation in question happened in a public setting, like a crowded event or a bustling street corner, then the Justices’ expectation of privacy might be pretty low. In that case, Windsor could potentially argue that the recording falls under the public figure exemption to the two-party consent rule.

If the Justice thought he was having a private chat, even if it was in a public space, then the recording could be seen as a violation of his privacy rights. Since Windsor didn't come right out and say, "I'm a journalist," then that could strengthen the argument that the Justice's privacy was invaded.

Of course, Windsor might have a few cards to play too. Since she registered for the event using her real name, then it could be tough to argue that she was actively trying to deceive the Justice about her identity. But just because she didn't lie about her name doesn't necessarily mean she was in the clear. Failing to mention her role as a journalist could still be seen as an omission that violated the Justice's expectation of privacy.

However, the newsworthiness of Alito's statements cannot be overstated. As a Supreme Court justice, his judicial philosophy and personal beliefs hold immense sway over the lives of countless Americans. The public deserves a glimpse behind the curtain, and Windsor's recordings, unedited and presented in context, captured something newsworthy and of public concern.

Some may quibble over whether her methods as an independent journalist should align with traditional journalistic ethics, but at a time when the Supreme Court operates with such secrecy, and while the foul stench of corruption pervades the air, the ends may justify the means. In my personal estimation (I am not a lawyer), her actions were protected under the freedom of the press.

I ask: could Stone's potential funding of a lawsuit against Windsor contribute to further corruption within the Supreme Court? As a longtime political operative with deep ties to MAGA power players, Stone has access to a network of wealthy individuals and organizations, both domestic and foreign, who may be willing to finance his legal efforts.

But at what cost?

If Stone were to tap into these resources to bankroll a legal attack on Windsor, it would immediately create the appearance of a quid pro quo arrangement. The very act of Stone using his influence and connections to raise funds for this purpose suggests that he expects something in return—perhaps favorable treatment from the justices he claims to be defending. This could cast an even darker cloud over the court's integrity and independence.

Moreover, the willingness of donors to support Stone's legal campaign would be neatly seen as attempts to curry favor with the justices themselves. By aligning themselves with Stone's efforts to shield the Justices’ unguarded opinions from scrutiny, these backers may hope to gain influence or access to the nation's highest judicial body. Such a dynamic would only serve to further undermine public trust in the court's impartiality and decision-making process.

It's also worth considering the message that Stone's potential fundraising efforts would send to the broader public. By using his political clout to rally financial support for a lawsuit against a journalist, Stone could be seen as weaponizing his influence to intimidate and silence those who seek to shed light on the court's inner workings. This could have a deeply chilling effect on press freedom and discourage others from engaging in the kind of watchdog journalism that is essential to a healthy democracy.

Of course, Stone and his supporters may argue that they are simply trying to protect the justices' privacy rights and maintain the court's dignity. They may frame their efforts as a necessary counterbalance to what they see as a liberal agenda to undermine the court's legitimacy. But even if one accepts this premise, the question remains: at what point does the pursuit of this goal cross the line into a form of corruption itself?

If Stone decides to follow through with his legal threats, Windsor's defense team could have a strong case under Florida's anti-SLAPP law—if the case even falls under Florida's laws as he claims, which raises questions about jurisdiction and the motivations behind his choice of venue. As a longtime resident of Fort Lauderdale and a fixture in the state's political scene, Stone's deep ties to Florida undoubtedly influence his intended legal strategy.

Despite this, a closer examination of the facts surrounding Windsor's secret recordings of Justices Alito and Roberts suggests that Florida law may not be the most appropriate lens through which to view this case.

You see, the recordings in question weren't made on the sunny shores of the Sunshine State, but rather at a swanky gala thrown by the Supreme Court Historical Society in our nation's capital. This seemingly minor detail could have major implications for any potential lawsuit. In the world of legal wrangling, jurisdiction is often determined by a complex web of factors, including where the alleged offense took place, where the parties call home, and where the proverbial harm was felt.

Even if Stone does file suit in Florida, there's a chance the court could decide that the laws of Washington, D.C., or some other jurisdiction should hold sway, given the location of the recordings. After all, when a case straddles multiple jurisdictions, choice of law provisions can come into play.

But wait, there's more!

Both Florida and Washington, D.C., have anti-SLAPP laws designed to shield individuals from lawsuits intended to stifle free speech and public participation. If the case lands in D.C.'s legal terrain, Windsor might be able to wield the city's anti-SLAPP statute as a shield against Stone's legal onslaught, just as is possible in Florida.

And if the laws of the two jurisdictions clash? Well, that's when things get really interesting—the court would have to wade through a thicket of legal principles and case-specific facts to determine which law(s) should reign supreme. So, while Stone's Florida connections may be driving his legal threats against Windsor, the question of whether Florida law actually applies is far from settled.

If proceeding with a motion to dismiss under a SLAPP statute, Windsor's legal team could easily contend that the lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to silence constitutionally protected speech on a matter of great public importance. Of course, the outcome would depend on how the court interprets the law, the Justices’ privacy rights, and the unique circumstances of the case, but Windsor's potential defense is not to be underestimated.

While the controversy surrounding Windsor's tactics is sure to rage on amongst the MAGA faithful, the legal grounds for Stone's proposed lawsuit appear rather flimsy. However this case plays out, assuming it moves forward at all, could have significant ramifications for the future of press freedoms and the accountability of our nation's most powerful figures.

If Stone's threatened lawsuit against Windsor is allowed to proceed and ultimately succeeds, it could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism and discourage others from attempting to uncover wrongdoing or expose the inner workings of opaque government institutions. It could also cast a darker pall over the Supreme Court within context of broadening allegations of corruption.

On the other hand, if Stone is discouraged from bringing this lawsuit, or Windsor's actions are successfully defended under anti-SLAPP statutes or First Amendment principles, it could reaffirm the crucial role of the press in serving as a watchdog for the public interest.

Regardless of the specific outcome, Stone’s legal threat against Windsor is a demonstration of the high stakes involved in the ongoing struggle for transparency, accountability, and the free flow of information in our democracy.

As such, this is a story worth watching.

This is an evolving story. I will update this post as additional information becomes available.

Update 7/18/2024, 13:27pm ET: New information suggests Stone’s legal threat may have been a reaction to Windsor’s just-teased upcoming release of recordings involving Stone himself, hence the legal threat:

My analysis generally stands here–Stone, despite not being a SCOTUS Justice, is also a public figure, and would face similar challenges in court. However, the full content of these recordings have not yet been made available.

Update 7/18/2024, 15:15pm ET: A new exclusive article has just dropped in Rolling Stone about these new recordings, which occurred in Florida at Mar-a-Lago. I am preparing a new article and will send it out shortly.

Update 7/18/2024, 16:25pm ET: I have written a new piece covering these recordings including the video, transcript, and analysis of what was said: