Kelly v. Trump
119, 2021
| Del. | Jul 7, 2021Background:
- Meghan Kelly filed a ~500-paragraph amended complaint in Delaware Court of Chancery against then‑President Donald Trump alleging three First Amendment claims: (1) government‑sponsored religion/establishment violations; (2) free‑exercise burden and incitement of private persecution; and (3) that Executive Order 13798 created unlawful church‑government entanglement.
- Kelly sought injunctive relief against Trump while in office and a declaration about government agents’ First Amendment limits; she purportedly served the complaint by mailing it to the U.S. Attorney General.
- A Master in Chancery recommended dismissal under 10 Del. C. § 8803(c) as legally frivolous, finding Kelly lacked standing (no concrete injury, causation, or redressability) and had not shown cognizable tax‑related harms.
- A Vice Chancellor overruled Kelly’s exceptions to the Master’s report; Kelly appealed.
- On appeal the Delaware Supreme Court noted Kelly had not perfected service (a defect fatal to the appeal), declined to issue an advisory ruling on Counts I–II as moot given Trump was no longer president, and rejected Kelly’s attempt to substitute President Biden under Court of Chancery Rule 25 to pursue Count III.
- The court held Count III was meritless on its face because EO 13798 does not compel government‑church partnerships and Kelly failed to state a cognizable claim; the Chancery judgment was affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for Counts I & II | Kelly argued Trump’s conduct caused persecution and religious harm that violated her First Amendment rights and RFRA. | Court below (and appellee) argued Kelly showed no concrete, particularized injury, causation, or likely redress. | Court found no standing; declined to decide Counts I–II as advisory since claims concern past presidential conduct. |
| Perfection of service on appeal | Kelly did not assert service was properly perfected; appealed the Chancery ruling. | Appellee argued failure to perfect service is fatal to the appeal. | Court noted failure to perfect service is fatal; this defect alone is dispositive of the appeal. |
| Substitution of Biden under Rule 25 | Kelly sought to substitute President Biden for Trump to pursue Count III challenging EO 13798. | Court (and appellee) argued substitution is inapplicable/insufficient and any successor liability theory fails here. | Court did not reach Rule 25 applicability to federal officers but rejected the substitution-based claim as meritless. |
| Validity of Count III re: EO 13798 | Kelly alleged EO 13798 forces government‑church partnerships and coerces religiously based conduct, causing her injury when she foregoes services. | Defendant argued the EO does not mandate partnerships or create the alleged entanglement; Kelly failed to plead a cognizable injury or claim. | Court held EO 13798 does not on its face require church‑government partnerships and Kelly failed to state a cognizable claim; Count III dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. Delaware Olds, Inc., 396 A.2d 963 (Del. 1978) (failure to timely perfect service is fatal to an appeal).
- Dover Historical Soc’y v. City of Dover Planning Comm’n, 838 A.2d 1103 (Del. 2003) (standards for organizational and individual standing).
- LaPoint v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 970 A.2d 185 (Del. 2009) (res judicata does not bar claims based on future events unknown at prior action).