When we assume….
On Friday, 25 Aug 2017, Judge William J. Zloch granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss a complaint against the Democratic National Committee and Deborah Wasserman Schultz. There’s been a fair lot of commentary making the rounds about this on social media, and all too often an assertion that the judge deemed the plaintiffs’ claims to be true and dismissed regardless. There’s a competing assertion out there as well, making the claim that the judge found the claims false and dismissed because of that. Neither is the case.
First, a link to the final order of dismissal (because primary sources are important):
http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/62-D.E.-62-Ord-of-Dismissal-8-25-17.pdf
The misinterpretation (if being generous) or deliberate misconstruing (if not) is based in large part on a section of the order where the court “assumes” the various plaintiffs’ claims to be true, taken outside the legal context.
When a judge receives from the defendant a motion for dismissal of this sort, the judge has to determine if there are legal grounds for the case to go forward whether or not any or all of the plaintiffs’ claims are true. So they assume that all such claims are true… and then determine whether, if all claims were true, there are legal grounds to proceed with the case.
Sometimes, there’s not. It could be because the plaitiffs have no legal standing to bring claim. It could be because the claims, even if true, do not violate the law. It could be for reasons of statue of limitation. It could be for quite a few reasons.
In this case, the judge made the assumption that all of the plaintiffs’ claims against the DNC and Wasserman Schultz were true… and then, after looking at the relevant case law, determined that even if they were, there were no legal grounds to move forward with the case. As such, he issued an order of dismissal.
This was not, as a number of sites have claimed, proof of the plaintiffs’ claims. Nor is it, as at least a couple of other sites claimed, proof that the plaintiffs’ claims were false. The judge made no determination as to the veracity of said claims. It was purely and simply a ruling on the technical merits of the case to continue, which were found absent.
There may be truth to the plaintiffs’ claims. There may not. But citing this judge’s words in his order of dismissal as one or the other does nothing to bolster either side’s argument.