Access / FOIA
The court held that the names of the subcontractors being paid with state funds to lobby for wolf-delisting were not properly classified as protected “trade secrets” or “commercial information,” under Utah’s open records statute, and that in any event the names must be released because the public interest in access outweighs any interests in restriction…
Think Twice Before Recording that Zoom: Court Finds No First Amendment Right to Record Live-Streamed Court ProceedingsRian C. Dawson
The question before the Court was whether Somberg, an attorney, was entitled under the First Amendment to obtain photo-audio-video records of courtroom proceedings streamed outside the courtroom.
Utah Supreme Court Gives Victory to Journalist Seeking Access to Records of Closed Criminal InvestigationJeffrey J. Hunt, David C. Reymann, and Jeremy M. Brodis
The Court held that the right of judicial appeal of such decisions under the Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”) rests only with the “political subdivision” or the “requester.”
A coalition of 16 news media organizations has now litigated the release of more than 100 exhibits of video evidence submitted in the prosecutions of the participants in the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
In a recently filed suit, five visual journalists are suing the NYPD for civil rights violations after each journalist was targeted, beaten, or arrested by NYPD officers while attempting to cover the 2020 George Floyd protests in New York City.
SCOTUS Strikes Down California’s Disclosure Requirement for Charitable Donors: Decision Lowers the Bar for Facial Challenges to Disclosure LawsBrian Hauss
Justice Roberts held that California’s donor-disclosure requirement fails exacting scrutiny, and facially violates the First Amendment, because it is not narrowly tailored to California’s asserted interest in policing charitable misconduct.
Although the foreseeable harm provision is more than five years old, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Reporters Committee v. Federal Bureau of Investigation is only the court’s second opportunity to address the standard, and it is the first time it has offered a robust description of what the provision requires.
The new rule rejects the governor’s decades-old practice of automatically sealing clemency files, but places the onus on the public to move for unsealing.