By james art 
Left: Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody speaks at a news conference on Jan. 26, 2023 in Miami (AP Photo/Marta Lavandier, file). Center: Donald Trump assassination suspect Ryan Root after his arrest (Law & Crime). Right: U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland looks on as President Joe Biden speaks about the assassination attempt on Trump in Pennsylvania (AP Photo/Susan Walsh).
After Florida’s attorney general told the federal government in a letter last month that she was “surprised” by the move to drop the state’s investigation into the second suspected assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, the Sunshine State has filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to “protect” its “sovereign interest” in the separate investigation of Ryan Routh, as ordered by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R).
The suit, filed by AG Ashley Moody (R) in Fort Pierce but not this time assigned to US District Judge Aileen Cannon, claims the feds are violating the Tenth Amendment by citing 18 US Code § 351(f) . The statute states that if “federal investigative or prosecutorial jurisdiction is asserted” in cases of assassination attempts on major presidential candidates, then “such assertion shall stay the exercise of jurisdiction by state or local authorities, under any applicable state or local law, until Federal action terminated.
The documents show Moody wrote a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Markenzie Lapointe saying she was “surprised” to see the government cite § 351(f) before Ruth even to be charged with attempted felony assassination.
The letter, filed as evidence in the lawsuit, accuses the feds of a “breathtaking intrusion into state sovereignty” and a “serious error” in seeking to “thwart” a state investigation.
In response a week later, Lapointe told Moody that the federal government looked forward to “continuing the commitment to ensure that the active federal prosecution and any potential subsequent state prosecution are appropriately ordered in accordance with applicable law and in accordance with practical considerations’.
“The federal indictment returned last week — which postdates your letter — resolves any potential uncertainty as to whether 18 USC 351(f) applies here and by any standard constitutes an assertion of that provision,” the U.S. attorney said. “Although, as you note, in enacting 18 USC 351(f), Congress clearly provided for federal investigation and first-instance prosecution of attempted murders such as occurred here, that same provision does not preclude a state prosecution permissible after the conclusion of federal prosecution—and in no way precludes the sharing of federal evidence with state authorities after the federal matter is closed.
More law and crime coverage: Mar-a-Lago judge Cannon’s firing apparently has Trump eyeing her to replace Jack Smith’s boss — and potential accused killer spotted
After three weeks passed, Moody asked US District Judge C. Michael Moore, appointed by George H.W. Bush, to issue a declaratory judgment stating that Florida “may conduct its investigation without violating § 351 (f),” or at least rule that the statute is “unconstitutional as applied in Florida” and prevent the feds from blocking the state investigation.
“Florida is suing to protect its sovereign interest in investigating violations of state law, as delay could affect the outcome of any prosecution,” the suit alleges, later noting that “[e]vision fades, memories fade, and the state has no way to compel the federal government to cooperate with state prosecutions.
“Every day that Florida is prevented from investigating, the state’s case becomes more difficult to prove at trial,” the suit further states. “In contrast, the federal government suffers no prejudice from Florida investigating state law crimes because the state has no intention of interfering with or obstructing the federal investigation.”
Moody argued that the government’s “reading” of the statute in question “would raise a substantial constitutional question because it would likely render § 351(f) unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.” If imposed, it would “constitute unlawful executive action,” the lawsuit said.
Read the case here.
Got a tip we should know? [email protected]