INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (WOWO) — Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has filed a federal lawsuit against current and former members of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, alleging he has been subjected to retaliation because of his political speech and asking a judge to stop disciplinary officials from pursuing an ethics grievance connected to a personal jet ski transaction.
The 34-page lawsuit, filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, accuses disciplinary officials of targeting Rokita since 2022 over public comments involving abortion, immigration and other political issues.
The most recent dispute involves a disciplinary grievance filed by Jess Sampson, a Rochester man who is also the subject of a separate consumer protection lawsuit brought by Rokita’s office following a personal transaction involving a jet ski.
Sampson questioned whether Rokita improperly used the attorney general’s office to pursue a private dispute. Rokita denies that allegation and contends that his report of suspected wrongdoing to the state’s Consumer Protection Division was constitutionally protected.
Rokita’s federal lawsuit names nine current members of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, five former commissioners and Executive Director Adrienne Meiring.
The commission is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of attorney misconduct in Indiana. Its membership includes seven attorneys and two nonlawyers appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court.
Rokita is asking the federal court to intervene in what his attorneys describe as a broader pattern of retaliation. The lawsuit seeks an order preventing the commission from continuing what Rokita characterizes as retaliatory conduct, as well as compensatory and punitive damages tied in part to alleged disclosures of confidential disciplinary information.
“General Rokita does not forfeit the freedom of speech by serving as Attorney General or by holding a law license,” Rokita’s attorneys wrote in the complaint. They argue the First Amendment prohibits government officials from retaliating against protected speech and contend the disciplinary process cannot be used to punish an elected official for participating in public debate.
Rokita also accused the commission of political bias in a statement released Friday, specifically pointing to commissioner Bernard Carter, the Lake County prosecutor.
Rokita alleges Carter supported his 2024 election opponent, Destiny Wells, while the commission was investigating him. Rokita said the disciplinary process has interfered with the work voters elected him to perform.
“The First Amendment does not disappear because someone holds a law license or is in an elected office,” Rokita said in the release. “This commission has used the discipline process itself, time and time again, to burden the work Hoosiers elected me to do, and most certainly has had a chilling effect on other elected officials who are attorneys.”
The immediate issue before the federal court stems from a December 2025 grievance filed by Sampson.
Rokita’s office is separately suing Sampson over alleged consumer protection violations. The federal complaint says Rokita initially brought concerns about Sampson to the Consumer Protection Division as a consumer.
According to Rokita’s lawsuit, the resulting investigation uncovered allegations involving unlicensed vehicle sales, vehicle titles and representations concerning vehicle repairs and the condition of vehicles.
The state is seeking restitution for Rokita, although his attorneys stress that Rokita is not the attorney of record in that consumer protection case. The federal complaint says only one of the state’s 11 counts directly concerns Rokita’s transaction.
Sampson disputes Rokita’s account of the jet ski transaction. Documents attached to the federal lawsuit show Sampson contends he sold the watercraft “as is” for $3,000 and that Rokita did not follow instructions concerning the engine’s break-in period.
Sampson subsequently filed the disciplinary grievance questioning whether the attorney general had improperly used his government office to address a personal dispute.
The grievance included court documents and what Sampson described as an artificial intelligence-generated response addressing whether a state attorney general could use the office to resolve a personal debt or private grievance.
Rokita’s lawsuit argues that Sampson’s grievance did not identify a professional conduct rule that Rokita violated through the transaction.
However, a disciplinary commission letter attached to the lawsuit cited a separate rule concerning an attorney’s obligation to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. The commission warned that failing to respond could itself result in professional discipline.
A July 29 letter from the commission demanded a written response from Rokita and warned that failure to cooperate could result in suspension of his law license or other discipline.
The letter said a preliminary investigation would determine whether the grievance should be dismissed or whether the matter warranted additional investigation.
Rokita’s federal complaint says the grievance had not yet been formally docketed by the commission. His attorneys argue that distinction allows him to seek federal court intervention without asking a federal judge to stop an already-pending state disciplinary proceeding.
The lawsuit also reaches back to earlier disciplinary matters involving Rokita’s public statements.
In 2023, the Indiana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Rokita over televised comments concerning Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana physician who provided an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio.
Rokita admitted to two professional conduct violations as part of that disciplinary case. The Supreme Court concluded his comments were likely to prejudice related proceedings and served no substantial purpose other than embarrassing or burdening Bernard.
Another disciplinary matter later examined whether statements Rokita made after receiving the reprimand conflicted with his acceptance of responsibility. That case was dismissed by the Indiana Supreme Court in October 2025 after Rokita and the disciplinary commission reached an agreement reaffirming his earlier admissions.
Rokita’s new federal lawsuit identifies several other disciplinary grievances as part of what he describes as a continuing pattern of retaliation.
Those matters include complaints related to his warnings to companies concerning diversity, equity and inclusion policies, the Indiana attorney general’s office filing a brief supporting Donald Trump’s eligibility for the presidential ballot and Rokita’s criticism of state Sen. Liz Brown in connection with immigration legislation.
Rokita alleges the commission repeatedly required him to respond to complaints under threat of discipline, kept investigations open for extended periods and harmed his reputation even in cases where no formal charges were ultimately brought.
The lawsuit also alleges a political conflict involving Carter and Wells.
Rokita claims Carter endorsed Wells during her 2024 campaign against him and hosted a campaign event for her while serving on the disciplinary commission. The complaint further alleges Wells later referenced Rokita’s disciplinary matters in campaign advertising.
Rokita also alleges disciplinary correspondence was provided to people who had filed grievances against him and was subsequently shared with reporters.
The complaint does not specify which defendants Rokita believes disclosed confidential disciplinary information.
He is seeking to hold the current and former commissioners and Meiring personally liable for damages over those alleged disclosures. He also wants an injunction prohibiting current commission officials from retaliating against him or releasing confidential disciplinary proceedings.
Rokita’s attorneys argue that forcing him to respond to Sampson’s grievance under threat of professional discipline violates his constitutional right to due process. He has requested a jury trial.
The federal lawsuit also cites $491,508 in taxpayer-funded legal expenses associated with Rokita’s disciplinary defense from 2022 through 2025. That figure, previously reported by the Indiana Capital Chronicle, covered four outside law firms and at least six disciplinary matters.
Rokita is represented in the federal case by Indianapolis attorneys Paul Mullin and E. Ryan Shouse of Lewis and Wilkins, along with Gene Schaerr, H. Christopher Bartolomucci and Justin Miller of the Washington, D.C.-based Schaerr Jaffe.
The allegations in Rokita’s federal lawsuit have not been established in court. The disciplinary commission members named as defendants will have an opportunity to respond to the claims as the case proceeds.
