JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit against the state of New York alleging it has interfered with the 2024 presidential election and violated Missourians' First Amendment rights in the process.
In his motion for leave to file a complaint, filed July 3 in the U.S. Supreme Court, Bailey alleges that New York's actions against President Donald Trump infringe on Missourians' First Amendment rights. He contends that New York’s prosecution, gag order and sentencing of Trump hinder his ability to campaign, thereby sabotaging Missourians’ ability to make an informed vote in the 2024 presidential election.
Bailey wants the U.S. Supreme Court to use its original jurisdiction to resolve this interstate dispute.
In the lawsuit, Bailey requests that the Supreme Court declare New York’s restrictions unlawful, lift any gag orders and delay sentencing until after the election.
Bailey argues that New York’s actions, driven by "radical progressives," are an attempt to influence the election outcome unfairly.
In his lawsuit, he identifies three main violations: interference with the presidential election in other states; violation of the Purcell principle, which warns against changing election rules close to an election; and violation of the First Amendment rights of voters in other states.
"This lawfare is poisonous to American democracy," Bailey said in a provided statement. "The American people ought to be able to participate in a presidential election free from New York’s interference. Any gag order and sentence should be stayed until after the election."
Bailey's lawsuit concludes that Trump’s conviction is likely to be overturned on appeal but stresses that the damage to his campaign will already be done.
Bailey asserts Missouri's interest in ensuring its citizens can hear from Trump without interference. A preliminary injunction motion has been filed to halt further action in New York until after the election.
"Trump’s conviction is very likely to be overturned on appeal. But by then, the constraints New York has sought to impose on Trump to limit his ability to campaign will already have had their full effect," Bailey said. "Missouri has a strong, judicially enforceable interest in its citizens and electors being able to hear Trump’s campaigning free from any gag order or other interference imposed by the State of New York."
Bailey argues in the court documents that gag orders and sentencing must be stayed until after the election.
"No doubt it is true that the Constitution would not have tolerated a future Confederate state gagging and sentencing Abraham Lincoln in 1860 to interfere with his campaign for the Presidency," the court documents state. "Doing so obviously would have interfered with federal interests the same way Maryland’s attempt to tax the Bank of the United States did 40 years earlier. Constitutionally, it is no different with New York’s attempt to use coercive power in the form of a gag order and impending sentence to interfere with Donald Trump’s campaign."
Bailey argues that New York has no interest—between now and November—in continuing its gag order and imposing a sentence that will impede a major-party candidate’s ability to campaign.