Briefs & Comments

  • December 6, 2017

    The Reporters Committee filed an amicus brief in the Illinois Supreme Court in a state Freedom of Information Act case concerning the retroactive application of a new exemption enacted during the pendency of the case. The brief argues that (1) a rule permitting the retroactive application of new FOIA exemptions would undermine the well-established public policy of Illinois in favor of transparency, and (2) given the important interests at stake the Court should adopt a clear-statement rule for all amendments to FOIA.

  • December 5, 2017

    The Reporters Committee and 18 other media organizations filed an amicus brief in support of reporter Jamie Kalven, who was subpoenaed to testify in Illinois v. Van Dyke. Van Dyke is the Chicago police officer on trial for murder in the death of Laquan McDonald, an African American teenager. Kalven's reporting revealed facts about the shooting that contradicted the official police account and ultimately led to the release of a police video of the incident and Van Dyke's prosecution. The brief emphasizes the importance of the reporter's privilege and argues that Kalven is protected by the Illinois Reporter's Privilege Act.

  • November 30, 2017

    The Reporters Committee, on behalf of a coalition of 24 media organizations, filed a Statement in the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is considering a request for a preliminary ruling lodged by the French high court in Google v. CNIL.  The referred case concerns Google's challenge to an order issued by the French data protection authority requiring Google to delist certain articles from its search results on Google domains worldwide.  The coalition argued that Google should not be required to delist search results globally, and that global application of the "right to be forgotten" is incompatible with fundamental rights and freedoms and international law. The coalition brief was written with attorneys from WilmerHale. The coalition's brief is also available in the as-filed French version.

  • November 30, 2017

    The Reporters Committee submitted comments to the Eastern District of Texas regarding proposed local rule amendments in General Order 17-24.  The Reporters Committee commented on proposed Local Rule CV-5(a)(7)(E), concerning procedures for sealing of judicial records.  The comments highlighted the strong presumptions of public access to court records under the First Amendment and common law.  The comments urged the Court to revise its proposed rule to make clear that parties who wish to file judicial records under seal must file a motion to seal in all circumstances and that judicial records cannot be filed under seal absent a court order that makes specific findings that the presumptions of access have been overcome.

  • October 19, 2017

    The Reporters Committee and 33 newsmedia organizations sent a letter to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in support of Bill No. A2750A. The bill would amend New York's Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") to strengthen its fee-recovery provision.

  • October 16, 2017

    RCFP filed an amicus brief in the District of Puerto Rico in support of Centro de Periodismo Investigativo (CPI), an investigative journalism organization. CPI brought suit seeking records and information from the government oversight board created by Congress to manage the territory's finances after Puerto Rico's financial crisis last year. The board moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal statute creating the board supersedes Puerto Rico's public records laws. RCFP's amicus brief argues that the statute does not deprive Puerto Ricans of their rights of access and that the board's motion to dismiss should be denied.

  • October 12, 2017

    The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and a coalition of 20 media organizations submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, supporting unknown plaintiff's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The brief responds to a panel decision that would allow the government to prohibit wire or electronic communication service providers from disclosing information about National Security Letters (NSLs). The brief argues that this nondisclosure requirement is a prior restraint and should be subject to the most exacting scrutiny under the Supreme Court's precedent in the Pentagon Papers case. 

  • October 10, 2017

    RCFP and a coalition of media organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Courthouse News Service's appeal of the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction to require the Orange County Superior Court to provide it with timely access to newly filed civil complaints. The amicus brief argues that the First Amendment creates a right of timely access to civil complaints that requires that access be contemporaneous with their filing. In addition, the brief argues that timely access to civil complaints benefits the public and that CNS's profit motive and readership are irrelevant to the determination of the First Amendment right of access.

  • October 6, 2017

    A federal district court judge in Manhattan permanently enjoined the release of a fictionalized film by Cleopatra Films about the 1977 plane crash that killed members of the band Lynyrd Skynyrd, because one of the co-producers, a former member of the band, was subject to a settlement agreement that limited his ability to profit off of the band's story. Cleopatra filed an expedited appeal with the Second Circuit. RCFP's amicus brief argues that the First Amendment protects films, including fictionalizations like Cleopatra's movie, that the injunction entered by the district court is a prior restraint, which is forbidden in all but the rarest of circumstances, and that even assuming Cleopatra is bound by the settlement agreement and violated it, the proper remedy is an action for damages, not a prior restraint.

  • October 6, 2017

    New York Times reporter Frances Robles moved to quash a subpoena requiring her to testify and provide her interview notes with the suspect in the "Baby Hope" murder case. Robles argues that her testimony and notes are privileged under the New York Shield Law's qualified reporters' privilege for nonconfidential, unpublished information. The trial court denied Robles' motion to quash, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed, and the People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The RCFP brief discusses the history of the Shield Law and the importance of the Shield Law's privilege for non-confidential information. It argues that privilege for non-confidential information can be overcome only if the party seeking the information demonstrates that his or her case "virtually rises or falls" based on the information sought.

  • October 3, 2017

    The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 22 media organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Bloomberg L.P.'s petition for rehearing before the Second Circuit.  Plaintiff Dan Friedman sued Bloomberg for defamation after Bloomberg News published an article about a lawsuit Friedman filed against his former employer, Palladyne International Asset Management B.V.  The article included a quote from Palladyne about the merits of Friedman's lawsuit that Friedman alleges was defamatory.  The district court granted Bloomberg's motion to dismiss, and the Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The amicus brief supports Bloomberg's argument that the Second Circuit should rehear the case and affirm the dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that the allegedly defamatory statement is protected by New York's fair report privilege, New York Civil Rights Law § 74.

  • September 20, 2017

    Appellants Alan Dershowitz and Michael Cernovich sought access to certain sealed judicial records in Giuffre v. Maxwell, a defamation action in the Southern District of New York. The district court entered a standing order in the case permitting the parties to file documents under seal without first seeking judicial approval, resulting in the filing of the majority of the substantive papers in the case under seal, including the papers in support of an opposition to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The amicus brief argues, among other things, that the district court's order permitting the sealing is contrary to the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access, and there are no compelling or countervailing interests justifying sealing in this case.

  • September 5, 2017

    The Reporters Committee and 17 media organizations filed an amicus brief in a case over excessive court fees, emphasizing the importance of unfettered access to electronic court records to the press and the public because the news media uses electronic court records to inform the public about matters of public concern. The brief also argues that limiting PACER fees to the cost of dissemination is consistent with First Amendment values, and PACER fees in excess of those permitted by the E-Government Act of 2002 hinders journalists and the public from accessing court records.

  • August 14, 2017

    This case asks the U.S. Supreme Court to answer whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment. RCFP and 19 media organizations joined as amici in support of petitioner, arguing that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to get cellphone location information. The brief explained the historic connection between the First and Fourth Amendments, and argued that long-term tracking of cellphone location information could reveal First Amendment-protected activities and threaten the confidentiality of the newsgathering process. 

  • August 11, 2017

    The Reporters Committee and 25 media organizations filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of a group of plaintiffs challenging North Carolina's "ag gag" statute. N.C. Gen. Stat. 99A-2 creates a civil cause of action by an employer against (1) an employee who enters a nonpublic area of the employer's premises for a reason other than a bona fide intent of seeking or holding employment or doing business and captures or removes information or records images or sounds; (2) any person who places an unattended camera or surveillance device on the employer's premises; or (3) any person who intentionally directs, assists, or induces an individual to violate the act. The Middle District of North Carolina dismissed plaintiffs' case for lack of standing, and plaintiffs appealed.