Legal Expert Dismisses GOP Complaint Against VP Harris as Misunderstanding of Hatch Act
Florida Congressman Cory Mills recently called on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate Vice President Kamala Harris, alleging that she violated federal law by speaking critically of former President Donald Trump during a press conference. Mills asserted that Harris’s remarks were a misuse of “official authority” to interfere with an upcoming election, citing the Hatch Act, which restricts federal employees from engaging in political activity while on duty or in an official capacity. However, a legal expert swiftly dismantled this accusation, highlighting an apparent misunderstanding of the law’s application.
Mills, a Republican, addressed a formal letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, urging him to launch an investigation into Harris’s statements. In his letter, he wrote, “In federal law, it is a crime for any federal officer or employee to ‘use his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives.’” Mills argued that Garland’s office should pursue answers “given the proximity to the election” to address what he viewed as potential misuse of power by Harris.
Despite Mills’ insistence, national security attorney Bradley Moss pointed out a fundamental flaw in the congressman’s claim. Responding on X (formerly Twitter), Moss quipped, “That’s funny. She is exempt, just like Trump was in 2020.” His response underscores a longstanding exemption in the Hatch Act that applies to both the President and the Vice President.
The Hatch Act explicitly excludes the President and Vice President from its restrictions. The law defines covered “employees” as “any individual, other than the President and the Vice President, employed or holding office in (A) an Executive agency other than the Government Accountability Office; or (B) a position within the competitive service which is not in an Executive agency.” This exemption has long been recognized to allow these high-ranking officials the freedom to campaign from office without violating federal law, as they are actively engaged in seeking re-election. This loophole has allowed previous presidents and vice presidents, including Trump, to give campaign-oriented press conferences while holding office.
Harris’s remarks against Trump pertained to recently uncovered statements where the former president allegedly urged U.S. military generals to show loyalty similar to the command structures under Hitler’s regime. In Mills’ interpretation, Harris’s critique represented an official misuse of authority to influence the electorate against Trump. However, Moss’s clarification highlights that such comments fall squarely within legal bounds for the vice president.
More Read
Historically, the Hatch Act has come into play more often with lower-level executive officials than with the nation’s highest offices. During the Trump administration, his former advisor Kellyanne Conway was found to have violated the Hatch Act on multiple occasions. In one notable instance, the Office of Special Counsel found that Conway violated the law by publicly criticizing Democratic candidates in her official capacity. However, despite repeated infractions, no disciplinary action was taken against Conway, revealing the enforcement challenges associated with Hatch Act violations at higher government levels.
Mills’ accusation against Harris reflects ongoing political tensions as both parties seek to enforce accountability across the political aisle. Republicans have frequently invoked the Hatch Act to question the activities of Democratic officials in recent years, just as Democrats have applied similar scrutiny to Republicans. However, experts point out that the nature of political campaigning and press statements within the executive branch, especially involving the President and Vice President, is often a gray area that can be easily misunderstood.
In Moss’s view, the attempt to frame Harris’s remarks as a Hatch Act violation is indicative of broader misunderstandings regarding federal law, particularly in relation to the roles of the President and Vice President. His commentary illustrates how such misunderstandings can lead to unfounded accusations that fail to hold up under legal examination.
While Mills’ letter may have stirred debate, the swift legal rebuke underscores the challenges of interpreting the Hatch Act in a way that fits complex, modern political realities. For the time being, Vice President Harris’s comments are legally protected under her exemption from the Act, allowing her and future vice presidents the latitude to campaign without facing legal repercussions.
