Judge dismisses Phil Lyman's lawsuit against write-in candidates Richard, Carol Lyman
A Utah judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit brought by former write-in gubernatorial candidate Phil Lyman, who accused two candidates with the same last name of taking a payment from Gov. Spencer Cox's campaign to run for office.
Third District Judge Amber M. Mettler granted a motion from Richard and Carol Lyman to dismiss Phil Lyman's lawsuit, saying the defendants successfully argued that their actions were protected under Utah's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, which protects Utahns from being sued 'based on the person's ... exercise of the right of freedom of speech.'
'Here, it is undisputed that running for political office is constitutionally protected activity, and it cannot reasonably be disputed that all of the plaintiffs' claims against defendants arise from defendants running for office,' Mettler wrote.
Phil Lyman, who lost to Cox in the Republican gubernatorial primary last June, refused to concede the race and launched a write-in campaign for governor. After Richard and Carol Lyman declared as write-in candidates for governor, Phil Lyman sued them, claiming they were offered '$1,000 and a steak dinner' by the Cox campaign in exchange for declaring their candidacies — which presumably could confuse voters who meant to vote for Phil Lyman.
Richard and Carol Lyman denied the allegations, and the Cox campaign previously called the claims 'blatantly false.'
After Phil Lyman filed his lawsuit — which sought up to $1.7 million in damages — Richard and Carol Lyman dropped out of the race on Oct. 25, agreeing to a stipulation that all write-in votes for 'Lyman' would be counted toward Phil Lyman's campaign.
Richard and Carol Lyman celebrated the ruling in a statement Thursday.
'The claims in the lawsuit were categorically false,' Richard Lyman said. 'We had every right to run for governor and lieutenant governor and should not have been forced out by those with deeper pockets. Hopefully this is a lesson for anyone who would intimidate political candidates trying to make their communities better by (pursuing) a life of public service.'
'We have always maintained that our actions were lawful and exercised in good faith,' Carol Lyman said. 'We appreciate the court's thorough review of the case and its fair decision.'
Phil Lyman did not respond to a request for comment.
In addition to dismissing Phil Lyman's case, the judge also ordered him to pay court costs and attorney fees to Richard and Carol Lyman. The total litigation costs have not been made public, but an attorney for the Lymans said he would file an affidavit showing the costs on Friday.
It's not the first court loss for Phil Lyman. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided not to take up his case seeking to have Cox thrown out of office, after that lawsuit was dismissed by Utah's high court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
23 minutes ago
- CNBC
Op-ed: It's time for U.S. to treat rare earth metals as instruments of geopolitical power. China already does
In April 2025, China imposed new export controls on seven rare earth elements and the permanent magnets derived from them — materials that form the foundation of modern life and modern warfare. Fighter jets, missiles, electric vehicles, drones, wind turbines, and even data centers rely on high-performance magnets made from these critical minerals. By restricting their flow, Beijing did not just flex its industrial muscle, it revealed America's and the rest of the world's dangerous vulnerability. China's latest actions show their readiness and ability to weaponize American and global dependence. This is not a new challenge. The United States has known for over 15 years that its critical mineral supply chains were too concentrated, too fragile, and too exposed to Chinese leverage and control. And yet, across Democratic and Republican administrations, we have failed to respond with urgency or coherence. Now, the consequences of those failures have grabbed us by the neck and are cascading across our commercial and defense sectors. Following the London talks, Washington and Beijing announced on Friday a new trade framework under which China will resume approving export licenses for rare earths over the next six months. U.S. officials have publicly extolled the breakthrough — but have offered few details about what was given in return. That leaves major questions unanswered: What were the U.S. trade-offs? How will the deal be enforced? And what happens when the six months are up? Skepticism is high. Ford recently halted production at its Chicago plant due to a magnet shortage — underscoring that even short-term supply interruptions have real consequences. Paper agreements are not supply chain solutions. Without transparency, timely approvals, and long-term planning, this could easily become another diplomatic cycle of one step forward, two steps back. Even this limited reprieve carries risks. Dozens of companies in Europe and North America have described China's export license process as highly invasive — requiring firms to submit detailed production data, end-use applications, facility images, customer names, and transaction histories. Some applicants have been denied for not providing photographs or documentation of their end users. Executives say the process amounts to "official information extraction." While firms are advised not to share sensitive IP, omitting key details can mean indefinite delays. For companies in defense supply chains, the implications are alarming: valuable commercial intelligence could be used to map competitors, disrupt pricing, or advance Chinese substitutes. This isn't just licensing — it's competitive surveillance. And until the U.S. builds secure, independent capacity across the critical minerals supply chain, it remains exposed to both disruption and data risk. This vulnerability did not happen overnight. Many have been watching this slow-motion train wreck for years. In 2010, China cut off rare earth exports to Japan during a maritime dispute, a clear warning shot the U.S. observed but brushed off. In 2014, the Obama administration won a WTO case against China's export restrictions but wrongly assumed that legal success would deter further manipulation. The first Trump administration identified rare earths as critical but notably exempted them from 2018 China tariffs, perhaps an unspoken acknowledgment of U.S. dependence. Biden took the most structured approach to date: Executive Order 14017, the Critical Minerals Working Group, and funding from the IIJA and IRA. Strategic partnerships like the Minerals Security Partnership emerged. But progress was slow, hampered by permitting delays and uneven ally commitments. The second Trump administration has returned with more aggressive measures, invoking Section 232, activating the Defense Production Act, and proposing major funding boosts in FY2026. A National Energy Dominance Council now coordinates efforts. Yet these measures, like China's six-month reprieve, still fall short of dislodging Beijing's grip. And crucially, the defense sector remains cut off, with no such licensing window available. The recent G7 summit in Canada underscored the global stakes. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen directly accused China of "weaponizing" its control over key materials like rare earths, calling for a united G7 response. The result: a G7 Critical Minerals Action Plan. Though China was not mentioned by name, the subtext was unmistakable. The plan commits G7 members to raise ESG and traceability standards for key resources; mobilize capital for new projects in critical mineral mining and processing; and cooperate on innovation in recycling, substitution, and refining technologies. Predictably, Beijing reacted with fury. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs dismissed the plan as "a pretext" for protectionism, claiming the G7 was instigating confrontation out of fear of losing market share. Brussels is now signaling that trade negotiations with Beijing are effectively stalled, so the odds of Chinese retaliation — particularly against the EU — are rising. If China doubles down, it risks pushing the EU, Japan, South Korea, and India more tightly into Washington's orbit — precisely what Beijing hopes to avoid. The raw numbers are staggering. China accounts for roughly 70% of global rare earth mining but over 90% of refining capacity. It produces 92% of the world's neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets — used in everything from submarines to Teslas. This dominance is no accident. China subsidized processing, focused on global acquisitions across the supply chain, and scales up production much faster than the West can approve and issue permits for a single mine. U.S. sites like MP Materials' Mountain Pass and Round Top remain incomplete without downstream processing. The DoD and DOE have offered grants, and the FY2026 Trump budget looks to expand U.S. mining capacity and secure access to critical minerals. But all this remains dwarfed by China's head start and longtime industrial command-and-control of the sector. China moved early and decisively into Africa and Latin America, partnering with governments in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bolivia, and Chile; investing in ports, rails, and refining infrastructure. In contrast, U.S. efforts and engagement on these sets of issues has been piecemeal and values-forward, prioritizing transparency and governance, important issues indeed, but delivering limited momentum of the critical mineral issues. Even recent MOUs with Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo remain, for now, symbolic, hindered by conflict and instability in those countries. The London talks and recent trade deal progress bought time. But time without a strategy is not fruitful. China's licensing regime remains intact, its data demands unabated. The defense sector remains shut out. Meanwhile, congressional threats to rescind clean energy and industrial policy funding could stall rare-earth projects just as they gain traction. This is a decisive moment. China is betting that America's internal divisions — between labor, industry, environmentalists, tribal nations, and political factions — will prevent the kind of unified, sustained effort needed to compete. They may be right. The U.S. needs to proves them wrong. The United States must now treat critical minerals not as commodities, but as instruments of geopolitical power. China already does. Escaping its grip will require more than mine permits and short-term funding. It demands a coherent, long-term strategy to build a complete supply chain that includes not only domestic capabilities but also reliable allies and partners. From mining and refining to magnet production and recycling, every link must be strengthened through targeted investment, permitting reform, and strategic coordination. A successful and sustainable policy requires commitment from one presidency to the next. Nor can the U.S. afford to engage allies and partners only rhetorically. Countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chile, and Indonesia (among others) need sustained partnerships backed by financing, technology transfer, and critical infrastructure investments, not just our lectures on governance. The six-month export reprieve from China is not a solution — it is a stress test. It reveals whether the U.S. can finally focus and act, or whether it will retreat again into complacency. Beijing is betting it will be the latter. Washington must respond with urgency, unity, and a strategy equal to the scale of the challenge. There is still time, but not much. —
23 minutes ago
'Too early to tell' if Iran's given up nuclear ambitions: Sen. Lindsey Graham
Sen. Lindsey Graham said it's "too early to tell" if Iran has given up its nuclear ambitions following U.S. strikes against key nuclear facilities in the country, but the Trump ally said he believes it's still the regime's "desire" to make a nuclear weapon. "Operation Midnight Hammer was a tremendous military success. It set the program back, I think, a couple years," Graham said. "But the question for the world: Does the regime still desire to make a nuclear weapon? The answer is yes. Do they still desire to destroy Israel and come after us? The answer is yes. Until that changes, we've got to keep our -- we're in trouble." On Friday, President Donald Trump seemed to dismiss the potential for Iran to resume its enrichment program, telling reporters, "The last thing they're thinking about right now is enriched uranium." Pressed by "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl about those comments and whether Iran has given up its "ambitions to be a nuclear power," Graham said, "Too early to tell. I do agree that the three sites were obliterated." But, the South Carolina Republican argued that while Iran is "done with that enrichment program," the regime is "not done wanting to destroy Israel or trying to come after us."
San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
James Walkinshaw wins Democratic contest to likely replace US Rep. Connolly in northern Virginia
FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — Democrats and Republicans chose candidates in northern Virginia on Saturday who will vie to replace the late U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly, a Democrat who served the congressional district in the Washington suburbs for 16 years. Democrats chose James Walkinshaw, who currently serves on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors — which oversees the local budget and policies. Republicans picked Stewart Whitson, an Army veteran and former FBI agent. The candidates will compete in a special election on Sept. 9 to represent Virginia's 11th Congressional District, which is home to more than 700,000 people and includes Fairfax, Reston and Vienna. Political observers have said that the district's Democratic primary likely will determine Connolly's successor in what has become a reliably Democratic district. Connolly, who most recently held a prominent position as the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, died last month after battling esophageal cancer. The 75-year-old's death left House Republicans with a 220-212 majority in Congress. The so-called 'firehouse primaries' for the special election were run by the political parties, not local governments or the Virginia Department of Elections, according to Fairfax County's website. Walkinshaw, who previously served as Connolly's chief of staff for more than a decade, was viewed as the frontrunner leading up to the Democratic primary. He had received Connolly's endorsement before the congressman passed away. Walkinshaw bested 9 other candidates for the Democratic nomination. 'I'm honored and humbled to have earned the Democratic nomination for the district I've spent my career serving," Walkinshaw said in a written statement posted to X on Saturday. "This victory was powered by neighbors, volunteers and supporters who believe in protecting our democracy, defending our freedoms, and delivering for working families.' The Republican nominee, meanwhile, said in a statement that it was 'time to fight' to flip the seat. 'With President Trump back in office he's taking bold and aggressive action to get the country back on track,' Whitson said. 'But he needs strong allies in Congress who will help him fix the economy, protect our families, and restore common sense.'
