amazing would it be different if that lawsuit had been filed in new york state court? well, they would then be making an equally absurd argument. but at least they would be in the right forum. they re trying to say that the state courts have to be kicked out of the picture because after all the president is a federal official. that doesn t immunize him from state process. it doesn t immunize him from state proceedings. there are only very limited exceptions to this anti-injunction act. the only one that could conceivably be relevant would be the civil rights laws. the civil rights laws if the president said this lawsuit that s being brought against me by cy vance violates my first amendment rights so, my religious freedom. of course it doesn t. but if he made that argument in a case i argued one in the supreme court called pennzoil v
conceivably be relevant would be the civil rights laws. the civil rights laws if the president said this lawsuit that s being brought against me by cy vance violates my first amendment in a case i argued one in the supreme court called pennzoil v texaco in 1987 the supreme court said on behalf of one company that had lost a big judgment in estate court that it couldn t run off to federal court to kind of interrupt the state proceeding. the only way to get federal review of a state judgment is to let the state proceeding run its course and then take your chances with asking the u.s. supreme court to review the result. but the most important point, even more important than the fact that this outlandish