“There are 47 states in the Union, and the Soviet of Washington.”
So declared postmaster general James Farley nearly a century ago with regards to the Pacific Northwest state, which has, indeed, had a radical reputation for decades.
That radical reputation was on especially acute display during 2020 as anti-police protests gripped the entire nation.
Well, the entire “progressive” portion of the nation anyway.
In fact, Seattle was so “progressive” during 2020 that it established a police-free zone, the notorious “CHOP” zone.
Ultimately, that zone achieved exactly nothing but chaos, but it did underscore the degree to which anti-police sentiment has remained rabid in the city for decades.
Given how demonized the police force has been in the leftist city, not to mention in general across the nation during the now-defunct “Defund Police” movement, is it any surprise that more than one law enforcement officer attended the January 6 protests … in a completely peaceful manner?
Now, rather unsurprisingly, for law enforcement officers that did attend the January 6 rally, very real career risks have emerged … at least for police officers currently or formerly associated with the Seattle Police Department.
Indeed, an intriguing report from CBS highlighted how four police officers who attended President Trump’s January 6 rally have apparently petitioned the Supreme Court for purposes of keeping their names out of any public records related to the insurrection.
CBS notes that the four officers consist of “current and former officers at the Seattle Police Department.
Despite exercising their First Amendment rights to peaceful assembly, during their own private time, it would appear that the city of Seattle was not going to let them off so easily.
Chiefly by not providing them any right to privacy regarding legal activities that they do on their own personal time.
Such as attend conservative political rallies.
In an effort to protect their privacy, the law enforcement officers initially sued the city of Seattle in order to prevent prohibit from being released without having their names redacted.
However, rather unsurprisingly, the Washington Supreme Court ruled against the officers in a unanimous decision, claiming that “the officers failed to show that disclosing their names in public filings would violate their right to privacy.”
CBS also notes that the police officers in question were subjected to stringent interviews, in which they “were required to disclose their political beliefs, affiliations, reasons for attending the Rally, and their mental impressions as to the content of the Rally.”
Astonishingly, even though Seattle’s Office of Police Accountability determined that the four police officers did not engage “in unlawful or unprofessional conduct,”
Given the recalcitrance of the Washington Supreme Court, the four officers escalated their case to the Supreme Court, whose rulings have become increasingly unpredictable as of late.
That said, the law enforcement officers did put forth a compelling case for the justices to consider.
The latest petition from the officers makes it rather clear that the case will set a clear precedent regarding what is acceptable in terms of disclosing “off-duty political activities” to one’s employer.
“At its core, this appeal involves whether a government agency can ignore the chilling effect resulting from an employer requiring an employee to disclose their off-duty political activities and attendant impressions or motivations associated therewith, followed by widespread dissemination to those who deliberately seek this information to subject these public servants to vilification without the commission of any misconduct whatsoever,” the petition noted.
Will the Supreme Court rule the same way as Washington Supreme Court, or will it diverge?
Time remains to tell, but it is clear that more than one law enforcement officer continues to face repercussions for publicly supporting Trump.
Author: Jane Jones
