This past week saw a significant development in the ongoing controversy surrounding Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) and the allegations regarding her marital history. Border Tsar Tom Homan publicly acknowledged that the government is actively investigating the matter.
Despite Rep. Omar’s consistent denial of marrying her brother for immigration purposes, the accusations have persisted, particularly on the internet and among her detractors.
The central question at hand is whether these allegations constitute a legitimate case of fraud or defamation.
Homan’s investigation focuses on potential immigration fraud committed by Omar, with the statute of limitations being highlighted as a complicating factor.
In a statement to Newsmax, Homan remarked:
“I just got advised by a fraud investigator the other day on that. I asked the question, can we review the files? You know, there was immigration fraud involved. The statute of limitation became an issue in the last four years when this was first brought up…Pulling the records now, pulling the files, and we’re looking at it. But this fraud investigator, who I know personally, one of the best fraud investigators in HSI, Homeland Security Investigations, said there’s no doubt he’d review the file. So, I’m running that down this week as a matter of fact, and we’ll see.”
According to her congressional biography, Omar arrived in the United States with her family during the 1990s. Her election to Congress as a young immigrant has been widely praised and celebrated.
The controversy revolves around her marriage to Ahmed Elmi in 2009. Elmi’s recent resurgence in the news, showcasing his extravagant lifestyle as a “dirty dandy,” has reignited allegations that he is, in fact, her brother. The couple divorced in 2017, with no DNA evidence substantiating the claims of them being siblings.
President Donald Trump and others have intensified their criticisms of Omar and the Somali community in Minnesota. While some find these attacks offensive, they are generally considered protected speech, as individuals have the right to express their opinions.
The accusation against Rep. Omar stands as a statement of fact, rather than mere opinion.
Several news outlets have labeled the allegation as “debunked” and “unsupported.”
In cases of defamation, truth serves as a defense. However, establishing the truth in this matter has proven challenging. Rep. Omar should not bear the burden of disproving baseless claims of fraud or sibling marriage. To date, her critics have failed to provide compelling evidence to support their assertions.
Despite enduring years of such accusations from various sources, Omar has refrained from pursuing defamation lawsuits. This decision is puzzling, as a successful legal action could deter future allegations, and she likely meets the criteria for proving actual malice on the part of her critics, even as a public figure.
On the flip side, litigation could potentially expose Omar to invasive scrutiny of her family’s immigration history and related personal matters.
With over three decades of experience teaching defamation law, it is uncommon for such accusations to persist without legal recourse from the subject. On its face, this could be a strong defamation case if the allegations are found to be false.
The allegations fall into the category of “per se” defamation. Under common law, these categories allow for presumed damages and include disparaging one’s professional reputation, alleging unchastity, accusing one of criminal acts or moral turpitude, claiming one has a loathsome disease, or attacking one’s business or professional standing. The allegations against Omar encompass criminal conduct and impugn her character and reputation.
As a public official, Omar faces a heightened burden of proof due to the actual malice standard set forth in New York Times v. Sullivan, which requires officials to demonstrate either actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. This standard has been extended to public figures as well.
Many critics argue that the allegations warrant investigation, which is within their rights. However, the assertion that Omar married her brother is often presented as an established fact.
Releasing DNA evidence could definitively debunk these claims (with no mention of an adopted status for the brother).
If such evidence exists, it would not only be conclusive but also compelling in a legal setting. The question remains as to why Omar has not opted to pursue legal action, given the abundance of potential defendants within the statute of limitations. The field is ripe for defamation claims.
As for the president, he continues to perpetuate the allegation: “If I married my sister to get my citizenship, do you think I’d last for about two hours or something less than that? She married her brother to get in. Therefore, she’s here illegally. She should get the hell out.”
However, President Trump is not a viable target for such lawsuits. The Federal Tort Claims Act explicitly prohibits libel, slander, or defamation claims against the United States or federal employees acting within their official capacity. While it may be possible to sue a government employee for actions outside their duties, the Westfall Act shields federal employees from personal liability for torts committed within their employment scope, substituting the U.S. government as the defendant under the FTCA, which ultimately leads to case dismissal.
Furthermore, President Trump enjoys immunity under Article II and established Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court’s rulings in Nixon v. Fitzgerald and Clinton v. Jones uphold presidential immunity for official actions within the scope of their duties. The ongoing legal battle involving E. Jean Carroll and President Trump further complicates the landscape, as differing court interpretations are at play.
While these statements are made during a presidential term and may be deemed privileged and immune, the same cannot be said for numerous commentators who have presented the allegations as factual.
Ultimately, any potential litigation would hinge on truth as a defense. If proven that Omar did marry her brother, even without a good-faith basis for the claim, truth would serve as a complete defense.
A defamation lawsuit could provide a definitive resolution to this lingering controversy. The question now lingers on whether Rep. Omar will pursue legal action.
Loading recommendations…