John Oliver's Legal Woes: Did He Cross The Line?

John Oliver is a comedian and the host of HBO's *Last Week Tonight*. In February 2024, he offered U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas $1 million a year and a $2.4 million motor coach if he agreed to resign from his position. This sparked debate over whether Oliver had broken the law, specifically in relation to 18 US Code 201, which prohibits public officials from accepting bribes or gratuities to influence their government actions. While some argued that Oliver's offer violated this code, legal experts, including former federal prosecutors Michael McAuliffe and Neama Rahmani, asserted that it was unlikely that Oliver had broken the law, given the absence of corrupt intent and the uncertainty surrounding whether resignation would be considered an official act under the code.

John Oliver's $1 million offer to Clarence Thomas

John Oliver, host of HBO's Last Week Tonight, offered U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas $1 million a year and a $2.4 million motor coach on the season 11 premiere of the show. The offer was made on the condition that Thomas resigns from the Supreme Court. Thomas, the most senior member of the Court's conservative majority, has faced calls to resign or be impeached due to questionable relationships with billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow and other rich acquaintances.

Oliver consulted legal experts who assured him that he was not breaking any laws by making the offer. He argued that Thomas could "keep the luxury perks he clearly enjoys without having to endure all of that grief," referring to the criticism and scrutiny the Supreme Court Justice has faced. Oliver's offer sparked debate about whether it violated 18 US Code 201, which prohibits public officials from accepting bribes or gratuities that influence their government actions.

Michael McAuliffe, a former federal prosecutor and former elected state attorney, stated that Oliver's offer was likely not made with corrupt intent, a necessary element for a charge under 18 US Code 201. He also questioned whether resignation could be considered an "official act" under the code. Neama Rahmani, another former federal prosecutor, agreed that no prosecutor or jury would take the offer seriously, and even if they did, Oliver could argue several defences, including the absence of criminal intent and the interpretation that retirement or resignation is not an "official act."

The offer sparked discussions about the ethics and legality of such actions, with some arguing that it highlighted the lack of ethical standards and accountability within the Supreme Court.

John Oliver's criticism of Law & Order

John Oliver has been criticized for his remarks on the popular TV show Law & Order, with some calling his argument "woke". Oliver spent half an hour on his show criticizing the police procedural drama and its various franchises for their positive portrayal of the police. He claimed that the show's executive producer, Dick Wolf, had a "far-too-close" relationship with law enforcement officials, and that the show would therefore never “grapple with the reality of policing in a meaningful way".

Oliver's main criticism was that the show consistently paints police officers and investigators as the "good guys", and justifies brutality as a necessary function of the criminal justice system. He also claimed that the show's high crime-solving rate is unrealistic and far from the actual statistics. Oliver said:

> Instead of depicting a flawed system riddled with structural racism, the show presents exceptionally competent cops working within a largely fair framework that mostly convicts white people.

He also noted that most of the defendants on the show are "white, male, older and from the middle or upper classes", and that the show rarely depicts people of color being targeted. Oliver blamed Wolf for this, claiming that he did not want to portray this reality as he did not consider it "on-brand" for the show.

One former Law & Order star, Diane Neal, who played ADA Casey Novak, agreed with Oliver's criticism. She acknowledged that the show was spectacular and tried to be empathetic, but that it was important for people to have realistic expectations of the system. She said:

> Real life is nuanced, and several things can be true at the same time. @LastWeekTonight and @iamjohnoliver brought attention to what has been a reality for many victims, including ME—the chasm between how we BELIEVE #lawenforcement should function, and how it often does not.

John Oliver sued by Bob Murray

John Oliver, the host of the popular HBO series "Last Week Tonight," revealed to his viewers that he and his show had been embroiled in a secret lawsuit filed by Bob Murray, the then-CEO of Murray Energy, the largest private coal company in America. Oliver's 2017 segment criticized Murray's close ties with the US President, his opposition to laws protecting miners' safety, and his company's possible role in a deadly mine collapse.

Bob Murray, dubbed "geriatric Dr. Evil" by Oliver, was deeply disturbed by the story, claiming that "nothing has ever stressed him more than this vicious and untruthful attack." The lawsuit sought damages, alleging that Oliver's characterization caused him significant distress. However, Oliver pointed out the irony of Murray's claim, given that his company was responsible for a mine collapse in Utah that resulted in nine deaths.

Oliver described the lawsuit as a "bullshit attempt to silence" his show, citing Murray's motion for a gag order to prevent them from rebroadcasting the story or having it available online. Despite the lawsuit's dismissal by a West Virginia court and Murray's eventual decision to drop the appeal, Oliver questioned the intent behind the legal action. He argued that Murray's goal was not to win the case but to stifle dissent and criticism.

The lawsuit cost "Last Week Tonight" over $200,000 in legal fees, even though they prevailed. Oliver emphasized the need for effective anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws to deter powerful individuals like Bob Murray from using the courts to suppress legitimate dissent. He noted that SLAPP suits are intended to intimidate critics into silence, even if they lack legal merit.

In response to the lawsuit, Oliver and his team created a five-minute dance sequence set in Times Square, filled with jokes at Murray's expense, titled "Eat Shit, Bob."

John Oliver's defence of anti-Slapp laws

John Oliver, the host of HBO's Last Week Tonight, has been at the centre of a controversy regarding his offer to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. Oliver offered Thomas $1 million a year and a $2.4 million motor coach if he agreed to resign from the Supreme Court. This incident has sparked debates about the legality of Oliver's actions and the effectiveness of anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws in the United States.

John Oliver has been an advocate for the implementation of federal anti-SLAPP laws, dedicating an episode of his show to the topic. He argued that anti-SLAPP laws are necessary to protect individuals and small businesses from meritless lawsuits filed by powerful entities with the intention of silencing criticism. Oliver shared his experience of being sued by a coal baron, Bob Murray, the former CEO of Murray Energy, highlighting the financial and legal burdens associated with such lawsuits.

In defence of anti-SLAPP laws, Oliver explained that they serve as a safeguard against powerful businesses and corporations that use the threat of legal action to intimidate critics. He emphasised the need to deter influential individuals like Murray from utilising the courts to stifle legitimate dissent. Oliver's experience with Murray demonstrated the financial strain and time-consuming nature of defending against frivolous lawsuits, even when they are ultimately unsuccessful.

However, critics have pointed out a potential design flaw in anti-SLAPP laws, stemming from the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Under this clause, the protections provided by anti-SLAPP laws cannot be limited to specific classes of defendants, such as impecunious individuals and small businesses. As a result, wealthy individuals and large corporations can also utilise anti-SLAPP laws to their advantage, potentially crushing legitimate libel and defamation lawsuits filed by ordinary individuals.

While John Oliver's advocacy for anti-SLAPP laws is well-intentioned, the controversy surrounding his offer to Clarence Thomas highlights the complexities and potential loopholes in legal interpretations. The debate surrounding anti-SLAPP laws underscores the importance of balancing the protection of free speech and legitimate criticism while also ensuring that defamatory comments and meritless lawsuits can be appropriately addressed.

John Oliver's influence on real-world issues

John Oliver, the host of HBO's *Last Week Tonight*, has gained recognition for his comedic yet meticulously researched deep dives into a variety of topics, from the serious to the seemingly mundane. His work has been credited with influencing real-world change, a phenomenon dubbed the "John Oliver effect" by Victor Luckerson of TIME magazine.

Ending Unfair Bail Requirements

John Oliver highlighted how bail requirements often unfairly target poor, low-risk defendants, forcing them to plead guilty to avoid prolonged pre-trial detention. Following his monologue, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that the city would relax bail requirements for nonviolent offences and misdemeanours.

Crashing the FCC Over Net Neutrality

John Oliver encouraged his viewers to write to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to express their opposition to changes in net neutrality laws that would create "internet fast lanes". The FCC received so many comments that its servers crashed, and the agency ultimately voted to adopt net neutrality regulations.

Raising Awareness of Civil Forfeiture Laws

John Oliver brought attention to civil forfeiture laws, which allow police to confiscate cash and property from individuals who have not been charged with a crime. Following his segment, Attorney General Eric Holder announced major limitations on the law.

Giving Back to Female Engineers

During a critique of the Miss America pageant's scholarship claims, John Oliver directed viewers to donate to alternative organisations, such as the Society of Women Engineers. The engineering group experienced a significant increase in donations, crediting the spike to the "John Oliver bounce".

Local Government Transparency

A Washington State legislator proposed a bill to allow citizens to comment on new legislation using online videos. The state senator behind the bill cited John Oliver's ability to make boring topics viral as a motivation for the initiative.

John Oliver's influence extends beyond his direct impact on specific issues. His show has been credited with amplifying media coverage of relatively unknown topics, such as chicken farming, and influencing the digital news cycle. This has resulted in increased awareness and potential for real-world change.

Frequently asked questions