Briefs & Comments

  • May 15, 2014

    The Reporters Committee, the ACLU of Missouri, and Christopher McDaniel, a reporter for St. Louis Public Radio, filed a lawsuit under Missouri's freedom of information law challenging the state's denials of requests for information related to lethal injection drugs. The Reporters Committee, the ACLU and McDaniel had all requested details about where the state was getting drugs to be used in executions, as well as information about where the drugs were tested. The state withheld the information about laboratories and pharmacies under an exemption to its public records statute that allows withholding the identities of "members of the execution team." The Reporters Committee, the ACLU and McDaniel argue that neither the pharmacies producing the drugs, nor the laboratories testing them, are properly considered "members of the execution team."

  • May 12, 2014

    The Reporters Committee, along with eight other media groups, filed an amicus brief with the D.C. Circuit to argue that the current test agencies and courts use to define "representative of the news media" is too narrow and does not accord with the language of the 2007 FOIA amendments or the congressional intent behind those amendments, and does not leave room for evolving media outlets to qualify for waivers. Cause of Action, a government accountability group, sued the Federal Trade Commission after it denied the group a news media fee waiver and a public interest fee waiver.

  • May 8, 2014

    The Reporters Committee joined a letter by California news organizations urging the state Supreme Court to review a decision that limits public access to juvenile dependency proceedings. The challenge to the closure of a courtroom was brought by the Los Angeles Times.

  • May 8, 2014

    The Reporters Committee wrote a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in support of an effort to unseal documents in a 15 year-old case, USA v. John Doe. In the underlying case, Felix Sater was accused of large-scale financial crimes, and pleaded guilty to lesser charges after agreeing to cooperate with government officials. Appellants argue that the secrecy the government afforded to Sater – his case was not on the public docket for over a decade – allowed him to defraud other investors. We argued that it is especially important that the Court follow the constitutional and common-law rights of access in this case because the press has a duty to monitor whether the government is giving informants special protections.

  • May 7, 2014

    The Reporters Committee joined a brief opposing an appeal by casino owner Sheldon Adelson in his libel suit against the National Jewish Democratic Council. The case had been dismissed under the Nevada anti-SLAPP statute and as non-actionable opinion based on hyperlinked sources. NJDC had published a petition on its website entitled “Tell Romney to Reject Adelson’s Dirty Money,” which alleged Adelson had personally approved a prostitution plan in his Macao casino.

  • May 6, 2014

    The Reporters Committee filed a brief in a FOIA case concerning prison records. Prison Legal News requested from the Federal Bureau of Prisons all documents related to claims filed against the bureau and settlements related to those claims. The bureau did release much of the information PLN asked for, but redacted key details about who filed some of the complaints and who was accused, citing both FOIA privacy exemptions (b(6) and b(7)(C)) to justify the redactions. A district court judge upheld the redactions, finding that the privacy interests at stake outweighed the public interest. The Reporters Committee's brief argued that no FOIA exemption applies to the information at issue, and that if the privacy exemptions do apply, the public interest in the information outweighs the privacy interest at stake because the identity information will help the public better assess how BOP is handling tort and civil rights complaints.

  • May 2, 2014

    The Reporters Committee jjoined a media amicus brief in a case involving payment disputes between the NCAA and its student athletes. The athletes contend that they have a right of publicity in the live broadcast, or re-broadcast, of any game in which they play, meaning that broadcasters must negotiate with them for rights regardless of what rights they obtain from a school or conference. The amicus brief argues that such an outcome would be a dramatic shift in the definition of publicity rights that would interfere with the media’s ability to air matters of public interest, and is not the proper way to resolve the dispute over whether college athletes should be paid. The brief was written by Nathan Siegel and Celeste Phillips of Levine Sullivan Koch and Schulz, and Erwin Chemerinsky of U.C. Irvine.

  • May 1, 2014

    Tom Scholz, founder of the band Boston, sued the Boston Herald for libel over a series of stories that discussed motivating factors that may have led fellow band member Brad Delp to take his own life. The Reporters Committee and 25 other media organizations argued the Herald's statements were protected opinion because the Herald disclosed truthful facts that formed the basis of the statements, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions from the facts presented, and because the Herald's conjecture as to why Delp may have taken his own life cannot be proven false and therefore cannot be actionable. The brief noted that offering analysis and speculation is an important part of journalism that contributes to a robust public discourse on matters of public importance, and the court must allow this type of speech to continue unhindered.

  • May 1, 2014

    The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and four media organizations intervened in a political speech case, asking a Wisconsin federal court to unseal records in a civil suit that alleges that the state misused an investigatory tool to retaliate against perceived political adversaries. The underlying case alleges that the so-called John Doe proceeding was used by state prosecutors to chill conservative speech and to drum up Democratic opposition to Wisconsin’s Republican governor, Scott Walker. One of the conservative targets has challenged the state’s investigation in federal court, and much of the material was placed under seal.

  • April 28, 2014

    The Animal Legal Defense Fund, ACLU of Idaho, and others filed suit alleging that Idaho's "ag gag" statute is unconstitutional. The statute criminalizes the recording of an agricultural production facility's operations without the facility owner's express consent. It also criminalizes obtaining records of an agricultural production facility by force, threat, misrepresentation, or trespass. It defines "agricultural production" broadly, including preparing land for agriculture, handling pesticides, making repairs, and raising or keeping animals, fish, bees, and so on. It includes both private and public operations. The Reporters Committee, joined by 15 other news organizations, argued that the Idaho statute weakens food safety guarantees at the same time it stifles free speech. Journalists' investigations into meat-processing facilities have long been credited with advancing the safety of the food the public consumes.

  • April 22, 2014

    The Reporters Committee and 28 other news organizations filed an amicus brief with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals urging it to accept jurisdiction to hear an immediate appeal of the denial of a special motion to dismiss under the D.C. anti-SLAPP statute. This is the second time this case has come before this court. During the first round, the court dismissed the appeal as moot because defendants appealed a decision on the original complaint, but Mann had filed an amended complaint that superseded the first, and the lower court still hadn't ruled on the motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The parties are now back in the Court of Appeals after the lower court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

  • April 11, 2014

    The Reporters Committee joined a media coalition amicus brief in a case ordering Google to take down a You-Tube video, the "Innocence of Muslims" movie, based on an actress's copyright claim in her brief appearance. The brief supports Google's petition to the Ninth Circuit to rehear the decision of a panel that ordered the take-down and then required Google to keep the order secret.

  • April 9, 2014

    The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 18 other media organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April in support of the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s challenge to the National Security Letters program. The media brief argues that the non-disclosure provision on the National Security Letter statute is a classic prior restraint on speech, and the Northern District of California’s failure to term it as such threatens an important protection on which journalists rely.

  • April 2, 2014

    The Reporters Committee joined a media coalition brief, urging the D.C. Circuit to uphold a decision dismissing a defamation claim under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act. The magazine Foreign Policy reported that Palestinian businessman Yasser Abbas, the son of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, traded off his political connections to become wealthy. Abbas is challenging the Anti-SLAPP Act’s applicability in a federal court.

  • March 27, 2014

    The Reporters Committee, joined by 13 other media organization, filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit seeking information about a case brought by death row prisoners. The prisoners' case at the district court level in Missouri focused on the lack of information available to the public about where the state gets its execution drugs. The court sealed several docket entries, one order, and many of the documents it relied upon to make decisions in the case. Publisher Larry Flynt moved to intervene in the case for the limited purpose of challenging those sealing orders; that motion was denied and he appealed. The Reporters Committee brief addressed the issue of standing to intervene for the purpose of unsealing court records, arguing that access is a public right and any denial is a "concrete harm."