Professors Behind California's Wealth Tax Threaten Possible Legal Action Against Critic

ZeroHedge
Published

The short version

  • David Gamage from the University of Missouri, Brian Galle and Emmanuel Saez from UC Berkeley, and Darien Shanske from UC Davis claimed that the public criticism violated…
  • One of the aggrieved professors, Brian Galle, teaches at Berkeley Law School called Lucas "a clown," but insisted that sharing public information is unlawful.
  • Attorney Catha Worthman sent the letter, but has reportedly refused to respond to inquiries after attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) pushed back on her legal…
  • I have long been a critic of such wealth taxes, specifically California's Billionaire Tax, as economically moronic and legally questionable.
  • The proposal has already cost the state trillions in lost wealth as wealthy taxpayers have fled, taking their businesses and jobs with them.

The story

Professors Behind California's Wealth Tax Threaten Possible Legal Action Against Critic

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,

There is an interesting controversy brewing in California after four California university professors threatened a political candidate, Richard Lucas, for criticizing them for their roles in the "Billionaire Tax" and sent him a "cease and desist" letter.

David Gamage from the University of Missouri, Brian Galle and Emmanuel Saez from UC Berkeley, and Darien Shanske from UC Davis claimed that the public criticism violated anti-doxxing laws by sharing contact information. They are clearly wrong. One of the aggrieved professors, Brian Galle, teaches at Berkeley Law School called Lucas "a clown," but insisted that sharing public information is unlawful.

Attorney Catha Worthman sent the letter, but has reportedly refused to respond to inquiries after attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) pushed back on her legal claims and those of her clients.

I have long been a critic of such wealth taxes, specifically California's Billionaire Tax, as economically moronic and legally questionable. The proposal has already cost the state trillions in lost wealth as wealthy taxpayers have fled, taking their businesses and jobs with them.

As I discuss in Rage and the Republic, these wealth taxes have a terrible track record and, on the federal level, face serious constitutional challenges. In California, the drafters included a retroactive clause that can also be challenged.

One of the four professors - who Lucas referred to as "the looter dream team" - destroyed the claims of many supporters that this is just a one-time tax. Some of us have written that this is simply the first salvo. Once they succeed in targeting billionaires, the same measure will likely be used for those in lower tax brackets.

In a recent debate, Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez admitted that he could not seriously claim this would be a one-time tax, as many in the public have asserted. He said they would have to wait to see if it passes, but it is likely to be repeated, and noted that there may also be a federal wealth tax on the way.

He said:

"I don't think it's going to be a one-time tax...because you can't surprise billionaires more than once.

Even then, you know, maybe some of them were expecting something like this.

So it's going to be a debate about this time, you know, a permanent wealth tax at a low rate that's going to last for a number of years."

Saez has publicly taunted the wealthy who are fleeing the state:

He noted the move on the left to create a federal wealth tax which has been pushed by Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna.

The legislation, "Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act," echoes the growing "eat-the-rich" mantra on the left - seeking to replicate a disastrous push in California that has led to an exodus from that state and an estimated loss of $2 trillion in taxable assets.

It is also flagrantly unconstitutional.

Under the plan, Congress would target 938 billionaires to tap them for $4.4 trillion. That money would then be redistributed as a $3,000 direct payment to every man, woman, and child in a household making $150,000 or less - $12,000 for a family of four.

Now back to the legal threat. I believe that the threatened legal action is wildly off base. Putting aside the fact that this is protected speech, the two anti-doxing statutes, Penal Code §653.2(a) and Civil Code §1708.89, contain clear scienter or intent requirements.

They must show that Lucas demonstrated an "intent to place another person in reasonable fear for their safety, or the safety of the other person's immediate family." Penal Code §653.2(a); Civil Code §1708.89. There is no evidence of such intent. If simply posting such identifying information is a violation, a significant range of protected speech would be proscribed.

There are ample reasons to criticize this tax and the claims made by its champions. There is a type of self-sustaining pattern on the left in support of such measures. Universities have largely purged conservatives and libertarians from departments, leaving most faculties with professors who run exclusively from the left to the far left.

These professors then added intellectual support for radical proposals like wealth taxes. The media then reports that experts have reviewed and approved the measures. It becomes an entirely closed loop from political groups to academics to media creating a uniform narrative.

The ADF wrote a strong letter pointing out the flaws in the claims of these professors under anti-doxxing laws from the lack of intent to the protection of free speech. These professors became public advocates for this ill-conceived plan and, as a result, have drawn criticism for that advocacy.

Lucas was one of those critics:

Nevertheless, the professors sent two cease and desist letters to Lucas, requesting that he remove their names and contact information from his website "California Wealth Exodus." Lucas has remained adamant that he will not remove their contact information.

The site for figures like Galle link to his academic page, as I have done above. We routinely link to such sites for people to look at the background of figures discussed in columns. In the case of Lucas, it is also meant to allow citizens to express their views to those pushing this proposal.

In my view, the threat of legal action is fundamentally flawed and would not prevail in the courts. These professors will need to respond to their critics rather than work to silence them.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 12:20
Read the full story at ZeroHedgeOriginal

Related Markets

All Markets
View full chart →
View Full Chart
View full chart →
View Full Chart
View full chart →
View Full Chart

Market data may be delayed. Not financial advice.

Powered by Gab AI

The Story At A Glance

Reading this article now — analysis appears below

Reading the article

💡 AI analysis provides alternative perspectives on current events

More to read

Recent stories from across the outlets Alto indexes.

Questions Alto can answer

From this story — each link opens a live data page or a tool already filled in.

  1. What does gas cost in California right now?Current statewide average
  2. How does California rank on taxes and cost of living?Taxes, wages, cost of living
  3. What were the latest California lottery numbers?Recent winning numbers
  4. Who represents California in Congress?House and Senate members
  5. What are California's voter ID rules?ID rules and deadlines
  6. What is $100 from 1990 worth today?CPI-adjusted dollars — result on the next page
  7. Where does $75,000 rank in California?Census percentile — national and state
  8. What federal tax bracket is $80,000 (single)?Marginal and effective rate on the next page
  9. What's Alto covering on the Finance desk?Latest headlines on this beat
  10. What else is Alto tracking on Federal Reserve & Interest Rates?Topic hub with related coverage
  11. What else is Alto tracking on Inflation?Topic hub with related coverage

All toolsAll topicsSource directoryStory timelinesHeadline comparisonSearchMost read

From Gab Shop

Official merchandise. Every order funds free speech infrastructure.

Shop all products

Install Alto on your phone

Add Alto to your home screen for breaking news — no app store, no account.

  1. Step 1Open alto.gab.com in SafariMust be Safari — not Chrome or in-app browsers
  2. Step 2Tap the Share buttonSquare with an arrow, at the bottom of Safari
  3. Step 3Tap "More"If you don’t see Add to Home Screen yet
  4. Step 4Tap "Add to Home Screen"Scroll the share sheet if you need to
  5. Step 5Tap "Add"Alto appears on your home screen like any other app.
gab

Talk Markets Freely

Trade ideas, earnings, and the Fed with investors who aren't waiting on a moderator's approval.

What Makes Gab Different

We're not just another social network. We're a platform built on principles that matter.

Freedom of Speech & Reach

All First Amendment protected speech is welcome. No algorithmic throttling or shadow banning.

Family-Friendly Platform

We maintain a clean environment. Explicit adult content is strictly prohibited.

Western Nations Only

Third-world IPs are blocked. No scammers, no spam farms. Built for Western civilization.

Funded By Users

Our users are our investors and customers. You're not the product being sold.

Battle Tested

A decade of standing strong. Banned from app stores, banks—and still here.

American Owned & Operated

We reject foreign censorship demands. Built by Americans, for free people.

Support Alto & Gab

Alto is funded entirely by readers like you. Your donation helps us continue delivering curated news from a right-wing Christian Nationalist perspective, powered by Gab AI.