Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch was founded in 1994 by attorney and right-wing activist Larry Klayman. Before leaving the organization in 2003, Klayman hired Tom Fitton, who became president of the organization. In October 2016, The New York Times wrote: "Judicial Watch's strategy is simple: Carpet-bomb the federal courts with Freedom of Information Act lawsuits." As of 2016, the organization had nearly fifty employees. Judicial Watch calls itself a nonpartisan educational foundation as well as a media organization. According to the Times, "the group has forced the release of government records that would otherwise have been kept from the public." Critics accuse JW of "weaponizing the Freedom of Information Act for political purposes."

Judicial Watch came to public attention after filing eighteen lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and other figures in the Clinton administration. An early lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of the Western Center for Journalism (WCJ) in 1998. The lawsuit alleged a retaliatory audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The WCJ was investigating the death of Clinton deputy White House counsel Vince Foster at the time.{{cite book|last=Fitton|first=Tom|date=2014|title=The Corruption Chronicles|isbn=978-1-4767-6705-5|publisher=Threshold Editions|pages=16}}

The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including US$7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.{{cite web |url=http://www.mediatransparency.org/scaifeaggregate.php |title=Recipients by amounts granted by all Scaife foundations |work=Media Transparency |access-date=June 2, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070608130352/http://www.mediatransparency.org/scaifeaggregate.php |archive-date=June 8, 2007}} This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends".{{cite news |title=Pursuing Clinton Suits Him Just Fine |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/klayman053098.htm |author=Segal, David |page=A01 |date=May 30, 1998 |access-date=June 2, 2007}}

Judicial Watch was involved in a legal dispute with Vice President Dick Cheney in 2002 when the group filed a shareholder lawsuit against Halliburton. The lawsuit, which accused Halliburton of accounting fraud, alleged that "when Mr. Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton, he and other directors inflated revenue reports, boosting Halliburton's share price."{{cite news|title=Fraud lawsuit filed against US vice president |work=The Guardian |author=Mark Tran |date=July 10, 2002 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/10/usa.dickcheney}} As reported by The Wall Street Journal the court filing claims the oil-field-services concern overstated revenue by a total of $445 million from 1999 through the end of 2001.{{cite news|title=A Legal Watchdog Group Sues Cheney, Halliburton for Fraud |work=The Wall Street Journal |author=Thaddeus Herrick |date=July 11, 2002 |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1026329087308831160}}{{Cite news|url=http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article106738447.html|title=Meet the conservative group that's driving Clinton's email scandal|quote=Judicial Watch also sued Cheney and his former company Halliburton over alleged fraudulent accounting practices. |work=Miami Herald|access-date=2018-02-19|language=en}}

In July 2003 Judicial Watch joined the environmental organization Sierra Club in suing the George W. Bush administration for access to minutes of Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force.[https://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_klayman.html Bill Moyers Interview with Larry Klayman], PBS, July 11, 2003.

Judicial Watch filed over twenty FOIA lawsuits involving the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails.{{cite news|title=Court Hearings in Clinton Email Cases Set for February |publisher=NBC News |author=Pete Williams |date=October 6, 2015 |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/court-hearings-clinton-email-cases-set-february-n439486}}

In February 2016, District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch's motion for discovery into whether the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deliberately thwarted the FOIA by using a private email server to obscure her communications from public records requests.{{cite news|title=Aides' email-server testimony could throw Clinton campaign a curveball |newspaper=The Washington Post |author=Rosalind S. Helderman |date=February 23, 2016 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/aides-email-server-testimony-could-throw-clinton-campaign-a-curveball/2016/02/23/fdd8bbd2-da51-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html?postshare=8521456328747827&tid=ss_tw}}

In March 2020, federal district court judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Clinton must provide a deposition.{{Cite web|url=https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/federal-court-rules-hillary-clinton-must-sit-for-deposition-about-her-use-of-private-server/|title=Federal Court Rules Hillary Clinton Must Sit for Deposition About Her Use of Private Server|date=March 2, 2020}} A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Lamberth's ruling in August. The full DC Circuit Court unanimously declined to hear an appeal in October, allowing the panel decision to stand.{{Cite web|url=https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/full-panel-of-federal-judges-including-three-trump-appointees-unanimously-reject-judicial-watchs-effort-to-depose-hillary-clinton/|title=Full Panel of Federal Judges, Including Three Trump Appointees, Unanimously Reject Judicial Watch's Effort to Depose Hillary Clinton|date=October 28, 2020}} In March 2021, the United States Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal by Judicial Watch.{{Cite news|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/545361-supreme-court-rebuffs-bid-for-hillary-clinton-deposition-about|title=Supreme Court rebuffs bid for Hillary Clinton deposition about emails|date=March 29, 2021}}

In 2020 Judicial Watch obtained copies of emails related to the Steele Dossier through a FOIA lawsuit.{{Cite news|url=https://highlandcountypress.com/Content/In-The-News/Headlines/Article/Judicial-Watch-obtains-more-emails-through-FOIA-lawsuit-/2/73/60731|title=Judicial Watch obtains more emails through FOIA lawsuit|access-date=17 October 2020|archive-date=April 16, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210416220538/https://highlandcountypress.com/Content/In-The-News/Headlines/Article/Judicial-Watch-obtains-more-emails-through-FOIA-lawsuit-/2/73/60731|url-status=dead}}

In the months prior to the 2020 election, Judicial Watch filed or threatened lawsuits against several states related to alleged inaccuracy of their voter rolls, demanding that nearly two million names be purged.{{Cite news|url=https://theintercept.com/2020/05/28/pennsylvania-voter-rolls-purge-judicial-watch|title=Right-wing Group Seeks to Purge up to 800,000 Voters in Pennsylvania, a Key Battleground State|author=Lacy, Akela|date=28 May 2020|access-date=17 October 2020}}

In October 2020, the group sued the state of California, claiming a law requiring corporations doing business in the state to have directors from sexual or racial minorities is unconstitutional, asserting "The legislation's requirement that certain corporations appoint a specific number of directors based upon race, ethnicity, sexual preference, and transgender status is immediately suspect and presumptively invalid and triggers strict scrutiny review by the court."{{Cite news|url=https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2020/10/05/conservative-legal-group-block-boardroom-diversity-law|title=Conservative Legal Group Sues To Block California Boardroom Diversity Law|date=5 October 2020|access-date=17 October 2020}} In April 2022, a California judge agreed.{{Cite news |last=Griffith |first=Erin |date=2022-04-03 |title=California Law Requiring Board Diversity Is Struck Down |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/business/california-board-diversity-law.html |access-date=2023-09-18 |issn=0362-4331}} In December 2022, a California appeals court also agreed.{{Cite web |date=December 5, 2022 |title=California Appeals Court reinstates injunctions against California Board diversity laws |url=https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/california-appeals-court-reinstates-5772743/ |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=JD Supra |language=en}}

A 2020 study by researchers from Northeastern, Harvard, Northwestern and Rutgers universities found that Judicial Watch was among the top five most shared fake news domains in tweets related to COVID-19, the others being The Gateway Pundit, InfoWars, WorldNetDaily and Natural News.{{cite web |date=2020-10-26 |first=Laura Hazard |last=Owen |title=Older people and Republicans are most likely to share Covid-19 stories from fake news sites on Twitter |url=https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/10/older-people-and-republicans-are-most-likely-to-share-covid-19-stories-from-fake-news-sites-on-twitter/ |publisher=Nieman Lab}}

Judicial Watch's main targets have been Democrats, particularly Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/30/judicial-watch-pursuing-the-clintons-like-inspector-javert-since-before-the-millennium/|title=Judicial Watch, pursuing the Clintons like Inspector Javert for two decades, scores again|last=Barbash|first=Fred|date=March 30, 2016|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en-US}}

{{main|Commerce Department trade mission controversy}}

In 1995, Judicial Watch, Inc. filed an action in the District Court under the FOIA, seeking information from the Department of Commerce (DOC) regarding DOC's selection of participants for foreign trade missions. In May 1995, following a search in response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests, DOC produced approximately 28,000 pages of nonexempt information and withheld about 1,000 documents as exempt. Disputes arose between the parties over the adequacy of DOC's search, and Judicial Watch charged that some DOC officials had destroyed or removed responsive documents. In December 1998, following discovery, the District Court granted partial summary judgment to Judicial Watch and ordered DOC to perform a new search.{{cite court |litigants=Judicial Watch v. United States Department of Commerce |vol=470 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=363 |pinpoint=1 |court=D.C. Circuit |date=2006 |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1075869.html |access-date=August 20, 2015}} During the investigation, Nolanda B. Hill, a business partner of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown testified that Brown had told her that first lady Hillary Clinton was the driving force behind the efforts to raise as much money as possible for President Clinton's reelection and the DNC. And further that, "...companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department."{{cite news|title=Sale Of Trade Mission Spots Alleged |newspaper=The Washington Post|author=Edward Walsh |date=March 24, 1998|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/03/24/sale-of-trade-mission-spots-alleged/ef191d84-844b-4e81-bc9e-bd175a0366e1/}}

Judicial Watch helped promote the conspiracy theory that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons, and still has yet to provide convincing proof.{{Cite news|url=http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article106738447.html|title=Meet the conservative group that's driving Clinton's email scandal|work=Miami Herald|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en}}

August 10, 2009 Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to the US Secret Service asking that official White House visitor logs be made public. In August 2011, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the agency to process the group's data request.{{cite news|title=Secret Service Must Produce Some White House Records |publisher=Bloomberg |author=Andrew Zajac |date=August 30, 2013 |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-30/secret-service-must-produce-white-house-visitor-records}} The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia partially affirmed the decision, holding that the Secret Service did not have to produce records of visitors to the president's office.

In 2010, Judicial Watch made inaccurate claims about air travel spending by Nancy Pelosi's congressional delegation; Judicial Watch's claims were picked up by the conservative conspiracy site WorldNetDaily.{{Cite news|url=https://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/pelosis-party-plane/|title=Pelosi's Party Plane? |date=March 4, 2010|work=FactCheck.org|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en-US}} Judicial Watch also made false claims about Pelosi's air travel in 2008.{{Cite news|url=https://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/nancy-pelosis-personal-jet/|title=Nancy Pelosi's Personal Jet |date=December 28, 2008|work=FactCheck.org|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en-US}}

Osama bin Laden, leader of the terror group al-Qaeda, was killed in Pakistan on May 1, 2011, in a joint operation by the United States Navy SEALs and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This operation was code-named Operation Neptune Spear.{{cite news|last=Cooper |first=Helene |title=Obama Announces Killing of Osama bin Laden |date=May 1, 2011 |url=http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/bin-laden-dead-u-s-official-says/ |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 19, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110502033900/http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/bin-laden-dead-u-s-official-says/ |archive-date=May 2, 2011}} On May 2, 2011, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with the Department of Defense and the CIA for photographs and videos of bin Laden taken during or after the operation.{{cite news|last=Cohen |first=Kelly |title=Judicial Watch demands release of bin Laden death photographs |date=August 22, 2013|url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judicial-watch-demands-release-of-bin-laden-death-photographs/article/2534606 |work=The Washington Times |access-date=August 21, 2015}}

The government failed to produce any records within the required twenty days. In order to force compliance, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DOD and CIA on June 8, 2011. On January 31, 2014, after legal wrangling, the Pentagon released Operation Neptune Spear documents to Judicial Watch. One email had the subject line OPSEC Guidance / Neptune Spear and is proof that days after the original FOIA request U.S. Special Operations Commander, Admiral William McRaven ordered his subordinates to immediately destroy any Osama bin Laden photos they may have had.{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/12/osama-bin-laden-photo-corpse/5417135/|title=Admiral: 'Destroy' photos of Osama bin Laden's corpse|newspaper=USA Today|date=February 12, 2014|first=Natalie|last=DiBlasio}}

In 2012, Judicial Watch sued the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in an attempt to force NARA to declare audio tapes held at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum of Bill Clinton to be presidential records, seize them, and release them to Judicial Watch. During Clinton's tenure in office, he had allowed historian Taylor Branch to interview him privately for a book Branch was planning to write. It was published in 2009 under the title "The Clinton Tapes". NARA had declined to deem the tapes to be "presidential records", and the federal judge dismissed the lawsuit stating that "the relief that plaintiff seeks – that the Archivist assume 'custody and control' of the audiotapes – is not available under the PRA."{{cite news |last1=Orr |first1=Gabby |last2=Holmes |first2=Kristen |last3=Perez |first3=Evan |last4=Herb |first4=Jeremy |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/25/politics/trump-maralago-documents-private-concerns-legal-tom-fitton/index.html |title=Inside Trump's public bravado and private resistance over Mar-a-Lago documents |publisher=CNN |date=August 25, 2022 |access-date=August 26, 2022}}{{cite news |last=Gerstein |first=Josh |url=https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/03/judge-wont-seize-bill-clinton-taylor-branch-audiotapes-116074 |title=Judge won't seize Bill Clinton-Taylor Branch audiotapes |work=Politico |date=March 1, 2012 |access-date=August 26, 2022}}{{cite web |url=https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13 |title=Judicial Watch, Inc., Plaintiff, v. National Archives and Records Administration, Defendant. Civil Action No. 10-1834 (ABJ) Memorandum Opinion |publisher=United District Court for the District of Columbia |date=March 1, 2012 |access-date=August 26, 2022}} This case was called the "Clinton socks case" by former president Trump because the tapes were said to have been stored in Clinton's socks drawer.{{Cite web |date=2023-07-21 |title=Trump says 'Clinton socks case' gets him off the hook – what was it and is he right? |url=https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-bill-clinton-socks-case-b2358184.html |access-date=2023-09-14 |website=The Independent |language=en}}

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to obtain the records from Robert F. Kennedy's time as the Attorney General. The records covered sensitive intelligence operations conducted during the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson administrations.{{cite news|last=Bender |first=Bryan |title=Judicial Watch sues National Archives over sealed Robert Kennedy records at JFK Library |date=July 12, 2013 |url=http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2013/07/11/judicial-watch-sues-national-archives-over-sealed-robert-kennedy-records-jfk-library/I140e1fFqfySi2Dbk5a63N/story.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161013215801/http://archive.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2013/07/11/judicial-watch-sues-national-archives-over-sealed-robert-kennedy-records-jfk-library/I140e1fFqfySi2Dbk5a63N/story.html|work=The Boston Globe |access-date=August 25, 2015 |archive-date=October 13, 2016}}

Judicial Watch has currently filed twenty FOIA lawsuits involving the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails.

On February 8, 2016, the FBI confirmed it was investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. The Bureau was forced to formally acknowledge the investigation due to an ongoing FOIA lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch. FBI director James Comey had previously referenced the investigation, although the FBI had declined to confirm or deny it in court filings.{{cite news|title=FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server |publisher=MSNBC |author=Pete Williams |date=February 8, 2016 |url=http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-hillary-clintons-email-server}}

A federal judge ruled on February 23, 2016, that top aides to Hillary Clinton could be questioned under oath by Judicial Watch about her use of a private email server as secretary of state. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch's motion for discovery into whether the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act by using a private email server to obscure her communications from public records requests.

In May 2016 U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted "discovery" to Judicial Watch into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email system. This ruling allowed Judicial Watch to question two close Clinton aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, under oath. In a separate FOIA lawsuit concerning Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi terrorist attack, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled Judicial Watch can conduct discovery into the email practices of Clinton and her top aides.{{cite magazine |last=Calabresi |first=Massimo |date=2016-05-16|title=Why a Civil Case Over Emails Could Hurt Hillary Clinton More Than the FBI|url=https://time.com/4337518/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch-civil-lawsuit/|magazine=Time |access-date=2018-02-20}}

In a separate case, on March 29, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted Judicial Watch limited discovery, citing potential bad faith by the government in responding to requests for documents related to talking points provided to Susan Rice in response to the Benghazi attack.{{cite news|title=Second judge grants discovery in Clinton email lawsuit |work=Politico |author=Josh Gerstein |date=March 29, 2016 |url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/hillary-clinton-email-discovery-221338}}

A FOIA lawsuit by Judicial Watch led to the release of 2,800 e-mails from Clinton aide Huma Abedin that were found on the laptop computer of Anthony Weiner, Abedin's estranged husband. Five of the e-mails were classified.{{cite news|title=Classified emails from Huma Abedin found on Anthony Weiner's laptop |work=The Atlanta Journal-Constitution |author=Shelby Lin Erdman |date=December 29, 2017 |url=http://www.ajc.com/news/national/classified-emails-from-huma-abedin-found-anthony-weiner-laptop/eSsx0ryzKMyDUz119tLeQM/}}

In 2013, Judicial Watch claimed that the Department of Justice under the Obama administration organized protests against George Zimmerman after the Trayvon Martin shooting; PolitiFact said that this was "mostly false" and that while Justice Department employees were sent to Florida, they "were sent with the idea of keeping the situation peaceful and calm, not to instigate or condone protests or violence."{{Cite news|url=http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/jul/12/judicial-watch/judicial-watch-says-department-justice-unit-organi/|title=Judicial Watch says Department of Justice unit organized protests against George Zimmerman|work=PolitiFact|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en}}

In 2014 and 2015, Judicial Watch falsely claimed that Islamic State (ISIS) had set up camp in Mexico; Judicial Watch's claims were picked up by several right-wing news outlets.{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/04/24/what-was-fake-on-the-internet-this-week-belle-gibson-isis-in-mexico-and-insane-weather-news/|title=What was fake on the Internet this week: Belle Gibson, ISIS in Mexico and insane weather news|last=Dewey|first=Caitlin|date=April 24, 2015|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en-US}}{{Cite news|url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/17/trent-franks/isis-mexico-and-planning-cross-border/|title=Is ISIS in Mexico and planning to cross the border?|work=PolitiFact|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/isismexico.asp|title=Is ISIS on the U.S.-Mexican Border?|date=April 20, 2015|work=Snopes|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en-US}}{{Cite news|url=http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/apr/17/judicial-watch/judicial-watch-says-isis-has-camp-mexico-and-near-/|title=Judicial Watch says ISIS operating a camp in Mexico--near El Paso|work=PolitiFact|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en}}

In 2013, Judicial Watch collaborated with Steve Bannon, executive chairman of the alt-right website Breitbart News, on the film "District of Corruption", which critiqued the Obama administration.{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-bannons-multimedia-machine-drove-a-movement-and-paid-him-millions/2017/04/09/203df1ce-197b-11e7-855e-4824bbb5d748_story.html|title=How Bannon's multimedia machine drove a movement and paid him millions|last1=Boburg|first1=Shawn|date=April 9, 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=December 25, 2017|last2=O'Harrow|first2=Robert Jr.|language=en-US}} Judicial Watch paid Bannon's group Victory Film Project $382,143 for the film. Politico described the film as an "infomercial for the work of Judicial Watch".{{Cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/steve-bannon-films-movies-documentaries-trump-hollywood-214495|title=What I Learned Binge-Watching Steve Bannon's Documentaries|work=Politico Magazine|access-date=December 25, 2017}}

Judicial Watch has advertised on Breitbart for a number of years.{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/06/08/breitbart-lost-90-percent-of-its-advertisers-in-two-months-whos-still-there/|title=Breitbart lost 90 percent of its advertisers in two months: Who's still there?|last=Bhattarai|first=Abha|date=June 8, 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en-US}} Judicial Watch's president Tom Fitton said "Liberal activists want to destroy Breitbart, but we won't be cowed".

{{Further|Murder of Seth Rich}}

In 2017, Judicial Watch requested documents related to the death of DNC staffer Seth Rich; Seth Rich's death led to debunked right-wing conspiracy theories alleging that Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party had him killed.{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/05/23/fox-news-retracts-controversial-story-on-seth-richs-death-and-alleged-wikileaks-contact/|title=Sean Hannity done talking about Seth Rich and WikiLeaks 'for now' as Fox News retracts story|last1=Phillips|first1=Kristine|date=May 24, 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=December 25, 2017|last2=Holley|first2=Peter|language=en-US}}

In August 2017, Judicial Watch falsely alleged that 11 California counties had more registered voters than their estimated populations of citizens eligible to vote; the claims were picked up by outlets such as Breitbart News and Russian propaganda network RT (Russia Today).{{Cite news|url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/mcclatchys-america/article166213202.html|title=More voters than eligible adults? Group makes dubious claim about California|publisher=McClatchy DC Bureau|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en}} Judicial Watch counted "inactive voters" in its tally, which is a list of people that California maintains of people who have been removed from active rolls after a mail ballot, voter guide or other official document was returned as undeliverable; California keeps such a list as a fail-safe in case eligible voters have been erroneously categorized as "inactive". California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said Judicial Watch's claims were "baseless", and "bad math and dubious methodology".{{Cite news|url=http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-judicial-watch-voter-registration-records-20170808-story.html|title=They sued for Clinton's emails. Now they want information on California voters|last=Myers|first=John|date=August 8, 2017|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en-US}} When the Los Angeles Times asked Judicial Watch to share its analysis of voter registration in California, Judicial Watch declined. Judicial Watch's voter fraud claims came in the wake of President Donald Trump's false claims of extensive voter fraud in California during the 2016 presidential election. Trump has subsequently repeatedly promoted Judicial Watch's false claims about voter fraud.{{Cite news|date=2020|title=Trump once again misleads with bogus claims of voter fraud|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/09/trump-once-again-misleads-with-bogus-claims-voter-fraud/}}

On February 3, 2020, the day of the Iowa caucuses in the Democratic presidential primary, JW president Tom Fitton suggested that voter fraud was afoot in Iowa by falsely claiming that "eight Iowa counties have more voter registrations than citizens old enough to register." The false assertion went viral on social media.Birnbaum, Emily (February 3, 2020). [https://thehill.com/policy/technology/481224-iowa-secretary-of-state-disputes-viral-misinformation-about-voter "Iowa Secretary of State Disputes Viral Misinformation about Voter Registration."] The Hill. Retrieved March 17, 2020.Romm, Tony, and Isaac Stanley-Becker (February 3, 2020). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/03/conservatives-push-false-claims-voter-fraud-twitter-iowans-prepare-caucus/ "Conservatives Spread False Claims on Twitter about Electoral Fraud as Iowans Prepare to Caucus."] The Washington Post. Retrieved March 20, 2020. Iowa's Secretary of State, Paul Pate, a member of the Republican Party, debunked Fitton's claim by linking to official voter registration data.{{Cite news|url=https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2020/02/03/election-2020-iowa-caucus-problems/4618371002/|title=The misinformation campaign: Iowa SOS blasts Judicial Watch for insinuating voter fraud|last=Clayworth|first=Jason|website=Des Moines Register|language=en|access-date=2020-02-03}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/03/conservatives-push-false-claims-voter-fraud-twitter-iowans-prepare-caucus/|title=Conservatives push false claims of voter fraud on Twitter as Iowans prepare to caucus|date=2020|newspaper=The Washington Post}}

Fitton has made alarmist claims about voter fraud, saying "We have all heard about voter fraud and the attempts by liberal media organs like the New York Times and Ivory Tower academics to dismiss it as a nonexistent problem. But is it real, widespread, and substantial to the point that it can decide elections."{{Cite news|url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/soon-released-book-judicial-watch-193056837.html|title=Soon-To-Be-Released Book by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton Warns of Massive Voter Fraud Danger in Current Presidential Election|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en-US}}

In 2017, Judicial Watch claimed that taxpayer money went into a billboard which depicted President Donald Trump as a Nazi. Further investigation showed that "while the owner of the billboard founded the group that received city funding for the Art Detour event during which the Trump image went up, the billboard project itself did not receive city funding".{{Cite news|url=https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2017/05/12/fact-check-did-taxpayers-fund-anti-trump-billboard-phoenix/101607546/|title=Fact Check: Did taxpayers fund anti-Trump billboard in Phoenix?|work=The Arizona Republic|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en}}

Judicial Watch has filed lawsuits seeking to force the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to release the correspondence of climate scientists who published a 2015 study in the journal Science.{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/07/climate-scientists-are-under-attack-from-frivolous-lawsuits|title=Climate scientists are under attack from frivolous lawsuits |last=Kurtz|first=Lauren|date=July 7, 2016|work=The Guardian|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en-GB}} The study had debunked one of the common claims made by those who reject the scientific consensus on climate change, namely that there existed global warming "hiatus" between 1998 and 2012. The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF), American Meteorological Society and Union of Concerned Scientists condemned Judicial Watch, saying that the disclosure of private communications between scientists "would harm (or halt altogether) government scientists' ability to collaborate with colleagues, damage the government's ability to recruit or retain top scientists, and deter critically important research into politically charged fields like climate change". The Judicial Watch lawsuit was inspired by Rep. Lamar Smith, a climate change denier{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/23/congressional-skeptic-on-global-warming-demands-records-from-u-s-climate-scientists/?postshare=1741445691560607 |title=Congressional skeptic on global warming demands records from U.S. climate scientists |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=23 October 2015 |access-date=26 October 2015 |last=Warrick |first=Joby}} who had accused the authors of the study of "alter[ing] data" to "get the politically correct results they want."{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/22/climate-change-science-attacks-threats-trump|title=Climate scientists face harassment, threats and fears of 'McCarthyist attacks'|last=Milman|first=Oliver|date=February 22, 2017|work=The Guardian|access-date=December 25, 2017|language=en-GB}}

In 2017, Judicial Watch helped to stoke Republican attacks against Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/no-longer-a-lonely-battle-how-the-campaign-against-the-mueller-probe-has-taken-hold/2017/12/24/441fc726-e5cb-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html|title=No longer a 'lonely battle': How the campaign against the Mueller probe has taken hold|last1=Kranish|first1=Michael|date=2017-12-24|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=2018-03-19|last2=Barrett|first2=Devlin|language=en-US|last3=Demirjian|first3=Karoun}} Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton has called for the Special Counsel investigation to be shut down, arguing that prosecutors in the probe were too biased against President Trump to conduct a credible investigation, a claim rejected by Republican Senators Thom Tillis and Bob Corker.{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/republicans-hammer-mueller-fbi-as-russia-investigation-intensifies/2017/12/06/4a6097ca-dabb-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html|title=Republicans hammer Mueller, FBI as Russia investigation intensifies|last1=Barrett|first1=Devlin|date=2017-12-06|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=2018-03-19|last2=Sullivan|first2=Sean|language=en-US}} Fitton furthermore called for shutting down the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) based on the claim that the Obama administration had turned it into a "KGB-type operation."{{cite news|first1=Julie Hirschfeld|last1=Davis|access-date=2020-11-06|title=Trump Calls Justice Department and F.B.I. Conduct 'a Disgrace' (Published 2018)|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/us/politics/trump-blames-justice-department-and-fbi-for-conduct-he-says-was-a-disgrace.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date=February 2, 2018}}{{Cite news|first1=Avery|last1=Anapol|access-date=2020-11-06|title=Conservative watchdog head: Do we need to shut down the FBI?|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/364868-conservative-watchdog-head-we-need-to-consider-shutting-down-the-fbi|date=14 December 2017|website=The Hill}}

In January 2018, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton repeated accusations against the Clinton Foundation that it had funneled money intended for charity work in Haiti to pay for Chelsea Clinton's wedding.{{Cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/13/politics/bill-clinton-denies-accusations-foundation-funds-wedding/index.html|title=Clinton denies foundation funds paid for wedding|first=Veronica |last=Stracqualursi|publisher=CNN|access-date=January 15, 2018}} The Washington Post fact-checked the claim a year earlier and found that it was "lacking any evidence".

{{Further|George Soros conspiracy theories}}

In October 2018, Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch stirred controversy when he appeared on Lou Dobbs' Fox Business show and used what many described as an anti-Semitic trope to suggest that the State Department was "Soros-occupied" territory. The remark echoed the anti-Semitic trope of a "Zionist-occupied government" to refer to Jewish control of the U.S. government.{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/oct/29/fox-business-news-antisemitism-claims-lou-dobbs-soros-migrant-caravan-comments-|title=Critics accuse Fox of allowing language that fuels antisemitism|last=Durkin|first=Erin|date=2018-10-29|work=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=2018-11-05}}{{Cite news|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/28/media/lou-dobbs-fox-news-guest/index.html|title=Fox condemns rhetoric used by Lou Dobbs guest as channel's star host faces growing criticism|author=Oliver Darcy|publisher=CNN|access-date=2018-11-05}} After widespread condemnation, Fox stated that Farrell would no longer be booked.{{Cite news|url=https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2018/10/29/lou-dobbs-controversy-fox-bans-george-soros-conspiracy-theory-guest/1804634002/|title=Fox bans Lou Dobbs' guest over George Soros conspiracy theory|work=USA Today|access-date=2018-11-05|language=en}}

Farrell promoted the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that a migrant caravan traveling through Central America towards the United States was being directed or funded by the "Soros-occupied State Department".{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2018/10/30/662052937/u-s-agency-investigates-taxpayer-funded-anti-semitism-against-george-soros|title=U.S. Agency Investigates 'Taxpayer-Funded Anti-Semitism' Against George Soros|publisher=NPR|access-date=2018-11-05|language=en}} Judicial Watch had been engaged in what NPR described as a "full-throated campaign against Soros". Among other things, Judicial Watch raised money by running ads with a call to action: "Expose Soros!"{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/explosive-device-targets-george-soros-amid-escalating-political-attacks-against-billionaire-hedge-fund-founder/2018/10/24/7d387982-d79b-11e8-aeb7-ddcad4a0a54e_story.html |title=Explosive device targets George Soros amid escalating political attacks against billionaire hedge fund founder |last=Kranish |first=Michael |newspaper=The Washington Post |language=en |access-date=2019-11-13}}

According to Media Matters for America, in 2015, Judicial Watch claimed that three newly obtained letters sent by Democratic senator Carl Levin to the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service "discuss how to target conservative groups the senator claimed were 'engaged in political activities'." Media Matters for America reported that Judicial Watch provided a link to the documents on its site, but said it failed to note that one Levin letter did not mention conservatives, while the other two mentioned an equal number of liberal/Democrat and conservative/Republican entities. The Judicial Watch claim was amplified by several conservative media outlets.{{Cite web|url=https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-friends/irs-sen-carl-levin-and-truth-behind-right-wing-medias-latest-phony-conspiracy-theory|title=IRS, Sen. Carl Levin, And The Truth Behind Right-Wing Media's Latest Phony Conspiracy Theory|first=Michelle|last=Leung|date=May 16, 2014 |publisher=Media Matters for America}}

Judicial Watch has sought to remove a statue of Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa from downtown Tucson.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/tucson-won-t-remove-pancho-villa-statue-despite-conservative-group-n949101|title=Tucson won't remove Pancho Villa statue, despite conservative group's request |date=December 17, 2018 |agency=Associated Press |publisher=NBC News|language=en|access-date=2018-12-22}} Judicial Watch said the statue "needs to go" because "Pancho Villa did great harm to people."

In 2020, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton urged attendees of an event organized by the Council for National Policy to prevent mail-in ballots from being sent to voters, saying "We need to stop those ballots from going out, and I want the lawyers here to tell us what to do."{{Cite news|last=O'Harrow|first=Robert Jr.|title=Videos show closed-door sessions of leading conservative activists: 'Be not afraid of the accusations that you're a voter suppressor'|language=en-US|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/council-national-policy-video/2020/10/14/367f24c2-f793-11ea-a510-f57d8ce76e11_story.html|access-date=2020-10-14}}

In 2003, Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman left the organization to run for the United States Senate from Florida.Pensacola News Journal: "Senate candidate Klayman to visit area". February 23, 2004. In 2006, Klayman sued Judicial Watch and its president, Tom Fitton. Judicial Watch asserted several claims against Klayman as well; in 2019, Judicial Watch obtained a $2.8 million verdict against Klayman on its claims of breaches of the severance agreement and trademark infringement.{{cite news|url=https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1140318/ex-judicial-watch-head-can-t-ditch-2-8m-verdict-in-tm-row|title=Ex-Judicial Watch Head Can't Ditch $2.8M Verdict In TM Row|date=March 19, 2019|work=Law360|url-access=subscription}}

In 2012, a Judicial Watch employee falsely told Orly Taitz that Klayman had been convicted of not paying child support (Klayman had been indicted, but the charges were later dismissed). Taitz then published the employee's comment on her website. Klayman sued Judicial Watch for defamation, and in 2014, a federal jury awarded Klayman $156,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages.{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/06/10/larry-klayman-wins-one-against-judicial-watch/|title=Larry Klayman wins one against Judicial Watch|first=David|last=Montgomery|date=June 10, 2014|newspaper=Washington Post}}

In 2017, Freedom Watch (Klayman's successor organization to Judicial Watch) unsuccessfully sued Judicial Watch and the American Conservative Union (ACU), alleging they violated the Sherman Act by colluding to prevent Freedom Watch from participating at the ACU's Conservative Political Action Conference.{{cite news|url=http://legalnewsline.com/stories/511155594-freedom-watch-inc-alleges-judicial-watch-american-conservation-union-is-restraining-trade|title=Freedom Watch Inc. alleges Judicial Watch, American Conservation Union is restraining trade|first=Louie|last=Torres|date=August 1, 2017|work=Legal NewsLine}}

Klayman had represented three individuals who sued Judicial Watch, his former employer and client, but he failed to obtain Judicial Watch's consent to waive his conflict of interest. Klayman maintained that the D.C. Bar had "recognized there was no evidence of dishonesty or personal gain".{{cite news|url=http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202660661736/DC-Attorney-Larry-Klayman-Agrees-to-Censure-in-Ethics-Case?mcode=0&curindex=0&back=NLJ&curpage=ALL&slreturn=20140525130723|title=D.C. Attorney Larry Klayman Agrees to Censure in Ethics Case|first=Zoe|last=Tillman|date=June 24, 2014|work=National Law Journal}} In 2020, however, the D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Klayman's license for 90 days and ordered him to complete a class on legal ethics.{{cite news|url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/judicial-watch-founder-larry-klayman-suspended-for-90-days|title=Judicial Watch Founder Larry Klayman Suspended for 90 Days|first=Melissa|last=Stanzione|date=June 11, 2019|work=Bloomberg Law}}

In 2007, former donor Peter F. Paul sued Judicial Watch, accusing it of using his name to raise more than $15 million to support his lawsuit against Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton while doing little to advance his case.Kristen Lombardi, [http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-05-17/news/vast-right-wing-conspiracy-rides-again/ Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Rides Again; Hillary haters go wild over campaign finance case] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121016145319/http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-05-17/news/vast-right-wing-conspiracy-rides-again/ |date=October 16, 2012}}, Village Voice, May 17, 2005.{{cite news |author=Ian Urbina |title=Battling the Clintons, and Each Other |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/politics/battling-the-clintons-and-each-other.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=March 15, 2005|author-link=Ian Urbina}}"Former Donor To Clinton Sues Judicial Watch", Josh Gerstein, New York Sun, February 8, 2007, p.5 All of Paul's claims were dismissed.Paul v. Judicial Watch, Inc., Civil Action No. 07-00279 (RCL) (D.D.C. February 2, 2009) (memorandum and order granting dismissal with prejudice).{{better source needed|date=May 2019}}

As of 2016, Judicial Watch had an annual budget of about $35 million.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton.html|title=Group's Tactic on Hillary Clinton: Sue Her Again and Again|newspaper=The New York Times|date=October 12, 2016|first=Jonathan|last=Mahler}} Between 1997 and 2002 Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 in 19 grants from a handful of foundations. The bulk of this funding came from three foundations: the Sarah Scaife Foundation, a funder of politically conservative causes;{{cite news|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/local/2014/10/25/Scaife-related-foundations-poised-to-take-bigger-stage/stories/201410250058|title=Scaife-related foundations poised to take bigger stage|newspaper=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette|date=October 25, 2014|first=Rich|last=Lord}} The Carthage Foundation, which merged into the Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2014;{{cite web|url=http://www.scaife.com/carthage.html|title=The Carthage Foundation|publisher=Scaife Foundations}}{{better source needed|date=May 2019}} and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.{{Cite web|title=Meet the Tax-Exempt Nonprofit Behind the "Corrupt Hillary" Narrative—And Its Funders|url=https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/economic-policy-research/2016/8/26/meet-the-tax-exempt-nonprofit-behind-the-corrupt-hillary-nar.html|website=Inside Philanthropy|language=en-US|access-date=2020-05-12|archive-date=April 16, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210416213338/https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/economic-policy-research/2016/8/26/meet-the-tax-exempt-nonprofit-behind-the-corrupt-hillary-nar.html|url-status=dead}} As of 2010, the Sarah Scaife Foundation was the group's largest contributor.{{Cite news|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2010-12-23/news/richard-mellon-scaife-s-cash-pays-for-judicial-watch-s-ideologically-motivated-lawsuits/|title=Richard Mellon Scaife's Cash Pays For Judicial Watch's Ideologically Motivated Lawsuits|author=Stephen Lemons|work=Phoenix New Times|access-date=March 23, 2012|archive-date=November 11, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141111064658/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2010-12-23/news/richard-mellon-scaife-s-cash-pays-for-judicial-watch-s-ideologically-motivated-lawsuits/|url-status=dead}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

• Fitton, Tom The Corruption Chronicles: Obama's Big Secrecy, Big Corruption, and Big Government (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012). {{ISBN|978-1-4516-7787-4}}
• Fitton, Tom Clean House: Exposing Our Government's Secrets and Lies (New York: Threshold Editions, 2016). {{ISBN|978-1-5011-3704-4}}

{{Commons category}}

• {{official website}}
• {{ProPublicaNonprofitExplorer|521885088}}
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20141027020400/http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/521885088/popup/1 Organizational Profile](archived) – National Center for Charitable Statistics (Urban Institute)

{{Coord|38.8836|-77.0155|display=title}}

{{authority control}}

Category:Government watchdog groups in the United States

Category:Political organizations based in the United States

Category:1994 establishments in the United States

Category:Organizations established in 1994

Category:Conservative organizations in the United States

Category:Non-profit organizations based in Washington, D.C.

Category:Climate change denial

Category:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Category:Fake news websites

Category:Conspiracist media