limitation

ATLANTA — The U.S. Department of Justice cannot have the names of and contact information for every person who worked during the 2020 election in Georgia’s Fulton County, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

The Justice Department in April obtained a grand jury subpoena seeking the names and personal contact information of county employees and volunteer poll workers. President Trump has long claimed without evidence that widespread voter fraud in Georgia’s most populous county, a Democratic stronghold, cost him victory in the state in 2020.

Fulton County asked a judge to quash the subpoena, arguing it was meant to “target, harass and punish the President’s perceived political opponents” and that it was “grossly over broad and untethered to any reasonable need.”

“Given the low need for the subpoenaed information and the highly burdensome nature of the disclosure of the same, the Subpoena is unreasonable and must be quashed,” U.S. District Judge William Ray wrote in his ruling, calling the scope of the request “staggering.”

Emails seeking comment were sent to both the Justice Department and Fulton County.

Although grand juries often work with federal prosecutors to investigate alleged crimes, “that does not give the DOJ the right to use the Grand Jury to do whatever the DOJ wants,” he wrote.

Even if the records sought by the Justice Department could help find people who worked for the county during the 2020 election who support the theory that the election was unfair, the information couldn’t be used to charge anyone, Ray wrote.

“That is because the statute of limitations for any possible crime arising from the 2020 Election has long expired,” he wrote.

The subpoena came after the FBI in January served a search warrant at the Fulton County election hub and seized hundreds of boxes of ballots and other documents from the 2020 election. A federal judge in May denied the county’s request to force the federal government to return the ballots.

The Justice Department argued in a court filing that the subpoena was the “next step in the normal investigative process” and that it seeks “records identifying persons with relevant knowledge.”

Kamal Ghali, a lawyer for the county, argued that the subpoena “will chill participation by election workers” and that the statute of limitations for any of the alleged misconduct had already lapsed.

Justice Department lawyer William McComb argued the statute of limitations issue is not relevant at the investigative stage. The point of the investigation is to figure out what charges can be brought, he said.

“My point is, as we sit here now, we are not sure what charges can be brought. That’s the whole point of the investigation,” he said.

The request for election workers’ contact information, McComb said, “would simply be a pathway to determine and speak with and interview certain individuals who worked at the polls who may have seen, heard or done something in and of themselves.”

The judge noted that the Justice Department had expressed concern about possible criminal actions in the years that followed the election, including an alleged failure by the county to preserve electronic ballot images. But he pointed out that the subpoena seeks information related to what happened during the 2020 election and its immediate aftermath.

“In these hyper-political times in which we currently live, there are sure to be some who disagree with this decision because they believe the allegations of fraud in the 2020 Election and believe that ‘light’ should be brought to those claims,” Ray wrote.

He added that nothing prevents continued investigation into those allegations by people who believe those claims — such as Congress or even the Justice Department — but the power of the grand jury, “which exists to investigate potential crimes and to bring viable indictments” cannot be used for that purpose. Otherwise, anyone in power could use the grand jury process to subpoena personal information of citizens “with no legitimate law enforcement purpose,” he wrote.

“Thus, everyone, whether you support the President or you do not, or whether you believe the 2020 Election was fair or believe that it was not, should be concerned about the DOJ’s ability to utilize the power of the Grand Jury to appropriate your private information without a legitimate purpose,” Ray wrote.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

A child sexual assault case filed against Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler will proceed to trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The singer is accused of grooming, sexually assaulting and impregnating 16-year-old Julia Misley in the 1970s. The suit, first filed in 2022 in Torrance, claims he “used his role, status, and power as a well-known musician and rock star” to exploit Misley. The complaint also argues Tyler admitted to the alleged crimes in his own memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?,” where he refers to her as his “teen bride.”

Earlier this week, a judge dismissed most of the case, citing the statute of limitations in Massachusetts, where the pair lived during their three-year relationship. But they allegedly crossed state lines while Tyler toured the country with his band, including to California, according to the complaint. Because of California’s Child Victims Act — a 2020 statute that allowed a “lookback window” where alleged victims can file lawsuits regardless of a statute of limitations — a portion of the case will still be tried.

“This is a massive win for Steven Tyler. Today, the Court has dismissed with prejudice 99.9% of the claims against Mr. Tyler in this case,” Tyler’s lawyer, David Long-Daniels, said in a statement to The Times. “The court has decided that only one night, 50-plus years ago, out of a three-year relationship is allowed to remain.”

New York has a similar statute that was recently employed by singer Casandra “Cassie” Ventura in her case against Sean Combs. She filed a sex-trafficking and sexual assault lawsuit against the music mogul in 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, just days before the expiration of a lookback window.

The lawsuit against Tyler, who previously appeared as a judge on “American Idol,” claims he and Misley first met at an Aerosmith concert in 1973. According to the document, he “performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct upon Plaintiff that night.” At the time, Tyler was in his mid-20s and Julia was 16.

The alleged encounter was the first of many, the lawsuit claims. In 1974, Tyler was named Misley’s legal guardian and took her on tour with the band.

According to the complaint, he described the nature of the relationship in his 2011 memoir, writing, “She was 16, she knew how to nasty … with my bad self being twenty-six and she barely old enough to drive and sexy as hell, I just fell madly in love with her. … She was my heart’s desire, my partner in crimes of passion. … I was so in love I almost took a teen bride. I went and slept at her parent’s house for a couple of nights and her parent’s fell in love with me, signed paper over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state. I took her on tour with me.”

The lawsuit also describes Misley’s alleged pregnancy with Tyler’s child, which ended in a “pressured” abortion.

In previous court documents, Tyler has denied the allegations and attempted to get the case dismissed.

“This reflects years of resilience and courage by Ms. Misley, driven by an unwavering pursuit of truth and justice. It is time for justice and for Tyler to be held accountable by a jury,” Misley’s attorney, Jeff Anderson, said in a statement.

The trial is scheduled for August.