Harmeet K. Dhillon

As a conservative lawyer in a blue state, Dhillon is used to political battles. She launched one of her biggest in August with a lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Alex Padilla to challenge California’s new law requiring the release of federal tax returns by candidates in the state’s presidential primary election. Melendez v. Newsom, 2:19-at-00706 (E.D. Cal., filed Aug. 6, 2019).

The law, SB 27, the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act, is aimed squarely at President Donald J. Trump. Dhillon, who is co-chair of the national “Women for Trump” coalition, said it is a voter suppression tactic in disguise. “The lawsuit specifies that by attempting to keep the most popular candidate off the ballot, California seeks to suppress voter turnout,” Dhillon said.

Or as she put it in her complaint, “The Act is a naked political attack against the sitting President of the United States” that “subverts the franchise for cheap political gain, creates an extra-constitutional qualification for the office of President, and effectively disenfranchises voters by denying their right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and effectively cast a vote for the otherwise qualified candidate of their choosing.”

It’s hardly her only current battle. Dhillon is prepping for trial in October before U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District over claims that her client, Center for Medical Progress, illegally recorded videos at Planned Parenthood meetings and conferences showing staff allegedly discussing the sale of aborted fetal tissue.

In July, she failed to persuade Orrick to dismiss the case. She argued that the videos were filmed by activists working in the public interest as undercover journalists. “The impetus for the actions were protected speech,” she said, a claim that may be part of her defense strategy at trial.

Planned Parenthood contends the recordings were edited to suggest the group illegally sells fetal tissue. Its complaint contains racketeering, conspiracy and invasion of privacy claims. Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress, 16-cv-00236 (N.D. Cal., filed Jan. 14, 2016).

In June, Dhillon won a ruling from a Santa Clara County judge allowing to proceed a proposed class action accusing Google Inc. of open discrimination against prospective employees who are white male conservatives. Damore v. Google LLC, 18-CV321529 (Santa Clara Super. Ct., filed Jan. 8, 2018).

“I am a go-to lawyer for people discriminated against by social media, either employees or users,” Dhillon said. “Nothing deters me from doing what’s right. I relish the challenge.”

— John Roemer