Press Clause Library

The Library contains judicial decisions, briefs, reports and articles concerning the First Amendment’s Press Clause.

The Press Clause Library is curated by the Press Clause Coalition, of which MLRC is a member. The Library contains judicial decisions, briefs, reports and articles concerning the First Amendment’s Press Clause that should be useful to media law practitioners considering invoking the First Amendment’s Press Clause in litigation. Questions about the Library or the Coalition can be directed to Lee Levine, its managing director.

Decisions—Supreme Court
Decisions—Lower Courts
— Access
— Editorial Freedom
— Newsgathering
— Targeting the Press
Briefs
— Access
— Editorial Freedom
— Defamation
— Newsgathering
— Targeting the Press
Reports and Studies
Articles

DECISIONS—SUPREME COURT

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
Invalidating application of public nuisance statute to permit a prior restraint on a newspaper. “If we cut through mere details of procedure, the operation and effect of the statute, in substance, is that public authorities may bring the owner or publisher of a newspaper or periodical before a judge upon a charge of conducting a business of publishing scandalous and defamatory matter—in particular, that the matter consists of charges against public officers of official dereliction—and, unless the owner or publisher is able and disposed to bring competent evidence to satisfy that judge that the charges are true and are published with good motives and for justifiable ends, his newspaper or periodical is suppressed and further publication is made punishable as contempt. This is the essence of censorship.”

Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936)
Invalidating tax directed at state’s largest newspapers under the Press Clause. “The predominant purpose of immunity here involved was to preserve an untrammeled press as a vital source of public information. The newspapers, magazines and other journals of the country, it is safe to say, have shed and continue to shed, more light on the public and business affairs of the nation than any other instrumentality of publicity, and, since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment, the suppression or abridgement of the publicity afforded by a free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern. The tax here involved is bad not because it takes money from the pockets of the appellees. . . . It is bad because, in the light of its history and of its present setting, it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guarantees. A free press stands as one of the great interpreters between the government and the people. To allow it to be fettered is to fetter ourselves.”

Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966)
Invalidating statute making it a crime for a newspaper to publish an editorial on election day advocating on behalf of or against a particular candidate. “The Constitution specifically selected the press, which includes not only newspapers, books and magazines, but also humble leaflets and circulars, to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs. Thus, the press serves and was designed to serve as a powerful antidote to any abuses of power by governmental officials, and as a constitutionally chosen means for keeping officials elected by the people responsible to all the people whom they were selected to serve. Suppression of the right of the press to praise or criticize governmental agents and to clamor for and contend for and against change . . . muzzles one of the very agencies the Framers of our Constitution thoughtfully and deliberately selected to improve our society and keep it free.”

Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)
Reversing criminal conviction based on prejudicial publicity and courtroom disruption and noting: “A responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field. Its function in this regard is documented by an impressive record of service over several centuries. The press does not simply publish information about trials, but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism. This Court has, therefore, been unwilling to place any direct limitations on the freedom traditionally exercised by the news media for ‘what transpires in the courtroom is public property.’”

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Invalidating prior restraint on newspaper publication of contents of classified documents. Concurring opinion by Justice Black: “In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.”

Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
Rejecting First Amendment-based privilege permitting journalists to decline to appear and testify before a federal grand jury. “Without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press would be eviscerated.”

Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)
Invalidating statute that required newspapers to publish replies from candidates for public office criticized in editorials. “The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials—whether fair or unfair—constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.”

Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)
Invalidating under First Amendment application of statute prohibiting publication of identities of sexual assault victims to a newspaper that secured information from publicly filed court records. “[I]n a society in which each individual has but limited time and resources with which to observe at first hand the operations of his government, he relies necessarily upon the press to bring to him in convenient form the facts of those operations. Great responsibility is accordingly placed upon the news media to report fully and accurately the proceedings of government, and official records and documents open to the public are the basic data of governmental operations. Without the information provided by the press, most of us and many of our representatives would be unable to vote intelligently or to register opinions on the administration of government generally. With respect to judicial proceedings, in particular, the function of the press serves to guarantee the fairness of trials and to bring to bear the beneficial effects of public scrutiny upon the administration of justice.”

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976)
Prohibiting prior restraint on news media reporting a criminal defendant’s confession. “Truthful reports of public judicial proceedings have been afforded special protection against subsequent punishment. For the same reasons, the protection against prior restraint should have particular force as applied to reporting of criminal proceedings, whether the crime in question is a single isolated act or a pattern of criminal conduct.”

First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)
Concurring opinion by Chief Justice Burger rejecting contention that Press Clause has independent meaning. There is no constitutional “difference between the right of those who seek to disseminate ideas by way of a newspaper and those who give lectures or speeches and seek to enlarge the audience by publication and wide dissemination.”

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978)
Rejecting First and Fourth Amendment challenges to search of newspaper office based on contention that “searches of newspaper offices for evidence of crime . . . will seriously threaten the ability of the press to gather, analyze, and disseminate news.”

Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978)
Rejecting claim of a First Amendment-based right of access to prisons in a plurality opinion.  Opinion concurring in the judgment by Justice Stewart: “That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society. The Constitution requires sensitivity to that role, and to the special needs of the press in performing it effectively.”

Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979)
Rejecting claim that First Amendment precluded inquiry into a journalist’s “editorial process” during civil discovery, but suggesting that governmental action subjecting “the editorial process to private or official examination merely to satisfy curiosity or to serve some general end such as the public interest” would “not survive constitutional scrutiny.”

Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979)
Invalidating indictment of newspapers for violating statute making it a crime to publish the identities of arrested juveniles. “[I]f a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance, then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order. . . . A free press cannot be made to rely solely upon the sufferance of government to supply it with information.”

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)
Recognizing First Amendment-based right of press and public to attend criminal trials. “It is not crucial whether we describe this right to attend criminal trials to hear, see, and communicate observations concerning them as a ‘right of access’ or a ‘right to gather information,’ for we have recognized that, ‘without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press would be eviscerated.’”

Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm’r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)
Invalidating tax directed at newspapers under the Press Clause. “A tax that singles out the press, or that targets individual publications within the press, places a heavy burden on the State to justify its action.”

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749 (1985)
Dissenting opinion by Justice Brennan rejecting contention that Press Clause has independent meaning. “We protect the press to ensure the vitality of First Amendment guarantees,” but such “solicitude implies no endorsement of the principle that speakers other than the press deserve lesser First Amendment protection.”

Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986)
“To ensure that true speech on matters of public concern is not deterred, we hold that the common law presumption that defamatory speech is false cannot stand when a plaintiff seeks damages against a media defendant for speech of public concern.”

Arkansas Writers’ Project v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221 (1987)
Invalidating under Press Clause taxing statute that exempts newspapers but includes magazines. “Our cases clearly establish that a discriminatory tax on the press burdens rights protected by the First Amendment. . . . This is because selective taxation of the press—either singling out the press as a whole or targeting individual members of the press—poses a particular danger of abuse by the State.”

Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439 (1991)
Rejecting First Amendment challenge to statute that taxed cable television providers but exempted the news media.  “Absent a compelling justification, the government may not exercise its taxing power to single out the press.  The press plays a unique role as a check on government abuse, and a tax limited to the press raises concerns about censorship of particular ideas or viewpoints.”

Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991)
Declining to invalidate cause of action for promissory estoppel against journalist for revealing identity of confidential source in face of First Amendment-based claim that it “will inhibit truthful reporting because news organizations will have legal incentives not to disclose a confidential source’s identity even where that person’s identity is newsworthy.”

Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001)
Holding federal and state wiretap statutes’ prohibition on the dissemination of communications unlawfully intercepted by a third party unconstitutional as applied to communications addressing a matter of public concern. “[I]f a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance, then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need . . . of the highest order.”

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
Invalidating statutory restrictions on independent expenditures criticizing candidates for public office despite fact that statute contained an exception for media entities. “‘We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”

Villarreal v. Alaniz, 607 U.S. ___ (March 23, 2026) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari)
Dissent of Justice Sotomayor from Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari in case in which the Fifth Circuit rejected a claim that the arrest of a journalist for posing questions to public officials violated the First Amendment. “This case implicates one of the most basic journalistic practices of them all: asking sources within the government for information. Each day, countless journalists follow this practice, seeking comment, confirmation, or even ‘scoops’ from governmental sources. Reasonably so. ‘A free press cannot be made to rely solely upon the sufferance of government to supply it with information.’”

DECISIONS—LOWER COURTS

Access

Associated Press v. Budowich, No. 25-5109 (D.C. Cir. June 6, 2025)
Granting Government’s motion to stay, pending appeal, district court order enjoining the White House from excluding the Associated Press from press briefings held in the Oval Office, on Air Force One, and at Mar-a-Lago. “The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion. The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.”

Associated Press v. Nelsen, No. 25-1513-111, Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, Jan. 16, 2026
Chancellor’s order granting news organizations’ motion for temporary injunction prohibiting press exclusion from observing executions. “It is in the public interest to ensure that the death penalty in the State of Tennessee both brings closure to victims and is done in an appropriate fashion. Having an independent media to report fully on the events of executions serves the public interest.”

Associated Press v. Neal, 788 F. Supp. 3d 959 (S.D. Ind. 2025)
Denying injunctive relief to journalists challenging state law excluding the press, but allowing others, to attend and observe executions. “At bottom, Indiana law treats members of the press the same as members of the public at large. They are not being singled out for disparate treatment, even though Indiana law permits physicians and spiritual advisors to attend executions.”

Hoffman v. Washington State House of Representatives, No. 3:26-cv-05214-DGE (W.D. Wash. March 10. 2026)
Denying plaintiffs’ application for preliminary injunction requiring legislature to issue press credentials to them pursuant to guidelines for identifying “professional journalists” provided by press association. “The Court is unable to conclude at this time that these guidelines are unreasonable or not intended to ensure those who obtain press passes are ‘professional journalists’ employed by ‘news organization[s],’ which is reasonably related to the goal of establishing a line ‘between professional journalism and political or policy work.’ Even further, the guidelines identify a clear directive in maintaining an independent press separate from the government, political parties, and interested groups.”

Index Newspapers v. U.S. Marshals Service, No. 20-35739 (9th Cir. 2020)
Affirming temporary restraining order issued against law enforcement authorities prohibiting them from targeting and harassing journalists covering protests. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that excluding the media from public fora can have particularly deleterious effects on the public interest, given journalists’ role as ‘surrogates for the public.’”

Karem v. Trump, 960 F.3d 656, 664 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
Successful challenge to suspension of White House press credentials. “[T]he White House surely has a legitimate interest in maintaining a degree of control over media access to the White House complex. ‘The Constitution,’ however, ‘does not permit [it] to prioritize any policy goal over the Due Process Clause,’ and ‘enforcement of an unconstitutional law is always contrary to the public interest.’”

New York Times Co. v. Department of Defense, No. 25-cv-04218 (PLF) (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2026)
Order granting motion for summary judgment invalidating Pentagon’s restrictions on press access and conditioning such access on agreement to comply with restrictions on newsgathering. “A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription. Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.”

Sherill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
Successful challenge to system pursuant to which the White House issues press credentials. “White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. Not only newsmen and the publications for which they write, but also the public at large have an interest protected by the first amendment in assuring that restrictions on newsgathering be no more arduous than necessary, and that individual newsmen not be arbitrarily excluded from sources of information.”

Garcia v. County of Alameda, 150 F.4th 1224 (9th Cir. 2025)
Reversing denial of preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of ordinance making it a crime to observe newsworthy activity in a public forum. “’The Supreme Court has recognized that newsgathering is an activity protected by the First Amendment.’ And we have determined both that the First Amendment protects recording and photographing ‘matters of public interest,’ and that an organization’s ‘recording of conversations in connection with its newsgathering activities is protected speech within the meaning of the First Amendment.’ These holdings compel the conclusion that Garcia’s newsgathering activities—the ‘quintessential function of a reporter’—are protected by the First Amendment.” [citations omitted].

L.A. Press Club v. City of Los Angeles, 799 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (C.D. Cal. 2025)
Enjoining City of Los Angeles from targeting reporters covering protests. “Insofar as Defendants’ actions hinder journalists’ ability to act as ‘surrogates for the public,’ the public is also served by injunctive relief. Defendants assert an important public interest in the safety of officers and the public, but they have not made a showing that permitting journalists in closed areas or limiting the use of crowd control weapons (as already required by California law) poses any risk to officers or the public.”

Editorial Freedom

Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 1:2025cv01959 (D.D.C. Aug. 15, 2025)
Enjoining Federal Trade Commission from enforcing civil investigative demand for documents issued to media watchdog group and investigative reporter about their editorial process, allegedly in retaliation for their critical reporting. “The principle that public issues should be debated freely has long been woven into the very fabric of who we are as a Nation. Without it, our democracy stands on shaky ground. It should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate. And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting.”

Media Matters for America v. Paxton, No. 24-7059 (D.C. Cir. 2024)
Affirming preliminary injunction preventing Texas Attorney General from enforcing a civil investigative demand for documents issued to media watchdog group and investigative reporter about their editorial process, allegedly in retaliation for their critical reporting. “Appellees – a media organization and a news reporter – are obviously engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment. Indeed, the underlying incident that precipitated their claim involved their news reporting on a public figure and alleged political extremism on a popular social media platform. Their reporting on public issues are quintessential First Amendment activities.”

Newsgathering

New York Times Co. v. Department of Defense, No. 25-cv-04218 (PLF) (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2026)
Order granting motion for summary judgment invalidating the Pentagon’s restrictions on press access and conditioning such access on agreement to comply with restrictions on newsgathering. “A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription. Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.”

Targeting the Press

Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 1:2025cv01959 (D.D.C. Aug. 15, 2025)
Enjoining Federal Trade Commission from enforcingcivil investigative demand for documents issued to media watchdog group and investigative reporter about their editorial process, allegedly in retaliation for their critical reporting. “The principle that public issues should be debated freely has long been woven into the very fabric of who we are as a Nation. Without it, our democracy stands on shaky ground. It should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate. And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting.”

Media Matters for America v. Paxton, No. 24-7059 (D.C. Cir. 2024)
Affirming preliminary injunction preventing the Texas Attorney General from enforcing civil investigative demand for documents issued to media watchdog group and investigative reporter about their editorial process, allegedly in retaliation for their critical reporting. “Appellees – a media organization and a news reporter – are obviously engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment. Indeed, the underlying incident that precipitated their claim involved their news reporting on a public figure and alleged political extremism on a popular social media platform. Their reporting on public issues are quintessential First Amendment activities.”

BRIEFS

Access

Memorandum of law in support of plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunction, Associated Press v. Nelson, Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, filed Oct. 29, 2025
Brief of Associated Press and other press organizations arguing that Tennessee law prohibiting journalists from observing executions violates First Amendment.

Brief of Appellants Associated Press, et al., Associated Press v. Neal, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed July 28, 2025
Brief of Associated Press and other news organizations alleging that Indiana policy of excluding press from attending and observing executions, but permitting others to do so, violates the First Amendment.

Brief of amici curiae First Amendment Scholars, Associated Press v. Neal, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed Aug. 4, 2025
Brief of amici curiae First Amendment Scholars in support of Associated Press’s claim that Indiana policy of excluding press from attending and observing executions, but permitting others to do so, violates the Press Clause.

Brief of Amici Curiae First Amendment Scholars, Associated Press v. Budowich, United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, filed Oct. 6, 2025
Brief amici curiae submitted by eleven First Amendment scholars in Trump Administration’s appeal of district court order enjoining it from excluding the Associated Press from news events in the White House.

Brief for amici curiae thirteen scholars and practitioners of First Amendment law, Index Newspapers v. United States Marshals Service, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed Nov. 23, 2020
Brief amici curiae of First Amendment scholars and practitioners arguing that the Press Clause prohibits the Government from harassing and targeting journalists covering protests.

Brief of amici curiae Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al., Garcia v. County of Alameda, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed Dec. 27, 2024
Brief amici curiae submitted by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Los Angeles Times in support of challenge to ordinance making it a crime to observe newsworthy activity in a public forum.

Brief of amici curiae of First Amendment Scholars, Los Angeles Press Club v. Noem, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed Nov. 25, 2025
Brief of amici curiae of First Amendment Scholars, Los Angeles Press Club v. Noem, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed Nov. 25, 2025

Brief of amici curiae Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al., Los Angeles Press Club v. Noem, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed Nov. 25, 2025
Brief of amici curiae Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 44 news and media organizations in support of journalists’ challenge to government action preventing them from covering protests.

Memorandum of law in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, The New York Times Co. v. Department of Defense, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, filed Jan. 5, 2026.
Brief of The New York Times in support of its motion to invalidate Department of Defense’s policy regulating press access to the Pentagon and requiring journalists to agree to limitations on newsgathering activities as condition of securing press credentials.

Brief of proposed amici curiae Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 23 media organizations in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, The New York Times Co. v. Department of Defense, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, filed Jan. 15, 2026
Brief of proposed amici curiae in support of motion to invalidate Department of Defense’s policy regulating press access to the Pentagon and requiring journalists to agree to limitations on newsgathering activities as condition of securing press credentials.

Brief of amicus curiae Pentagon Press Association in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, The New York Times Co. v. Department of Defense, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, filed Jan. 16, 2026
Brief of proposed amici curiae in support of motion to invalidate Department of Defense’s policy regulating press access to the Pentagon and requiring journalists to agree to limitations on newsgathering activities as condition of securing press credentials.

Defamation

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint, Mills v. Hearst Communications, Inc., No. 905859-25 (N.Y. Sup., Nov. 19, 2025)
Motion to dismiss defamation suit on, among other grounds, the ground that the Press Clause encompasses a constitutional version of the common law fair report privilege.

Editorial Freedom

Comments, In the Matter of News Distortion Complaint Involving CBS Broadcasting Inc., Federal Communications Commission, filed March 7, 2025
Comments submitted by FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, addressing the constitutionality of and statutory authority for the FCC’s inquiry into alleged “news distortion” by CBS News.

Petition for Special Relief, In the Matter of Repeal of News Distortion Policy, Federal Communications Commission, filed Nov. 13, 2025
Petition filed by Protect Democracy Project requesting that the FCC repeal its “news distortion” policy.

Brief of Proposed Amici Curiae the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al., National Public Radio v. Trump, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, filed June 20, 2025
Brief of proposed amici the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al. in support of First Amendment challenge to Executive Order barring broadcast licensees from using federal funds to purchase programming produced by National Public Radio.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re Radio Television Digital News Association, No. 26- ____, (D.C. Cir. filed April 28, 2026).
Petition for writ of mandamus filed the Radio Television News Association, along with eight former FCC commissioners and senior staff, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking review of the Commission’s “news distortion” policy on the grounds, among others, that it violates the First Amendment’s Speech and Press Clauses.

Newsgathering

Brief for amici curiae News and Media Organizations, Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission, United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, filed Feb. 23, 2026
Brief amicus curiae submitted on behalf of fifteen news organizations urging affirmance of district court decision enjoining the FTC from enforcing an investigative subpoena seeking records memorializing a news organization’s editorial process.

Brief of National Press Photographers Association, et al., National Press Photographers Association v. McCraw, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed Nov. 16, 2022
Brief of National Press Photographers Association challenging Texas law prohibiting use of drones for newsgathering that captures private property or over “critical infrastructure.”

Complaint, Associated Press v. Neal, United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, filed May 5, 2025
Complaint filed by Associated Press and other news organizations alleging that Indiana policy of excluding press from attending and observing executions, but permitting others to do so, violates the First Amendment

Brief for amici curiae thirteen scholars and practitioners of First Amendment law, Index Newspapers v. United States Marshals Service, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed Nov. 23, 2020
Brief amici curiae of First Amendment scholars and practitioners arguing that Press Clause prohibits the Government from harassing and targeting journalists covering protests.

Brief of amici curiae First Amendment Scholars, Los Angeles Press Club v. Noem, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed Nov. 25, 2025
Brief of amici curiae First Amendment Scholars in support of journalists’ challenge to government action preventing them from covering protests.

Memorandum of law in support of plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunction, Associated Press v. Nelsen, Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, filed Oct. 29, 2025
Brief of Associated Press and other press organizations arguing that Tennessee law prohibiting journalists from observing executions violates First Amendment.

Memorandum of law in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, The New York Times Co. v. Department of Defense, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, filed Jan. 5, 2026
Brief of The New York Times in support of its motion to invalidate Department of Defense’s policy regulating press access to the Pentagon and requiring journalists to agree to limitations on their newsgathering activities as a condition of securing press credentials.

Targeting the Press

Brief for amici curiae thirteen scholars and practitioners of First Amendment law, Index Newspapers v. United States Marshals Service, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed Nov. 23, 2020
Brief amici curiae of First Amendment scholars and practitioners arguing that Press Clause prohibits Government from harassing and targeting journalists covering protests.

Brief of proposed amici curiae the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al., National Public Radio v. Trump, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, filed June 20, 2025
Brief of proposed amici the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al. in support of First Amendment challenge to Executive Order barring broadcast licensees from using federal funds to purchase programming produced by National Public Radio.

Brief of proposed amicus curiae the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Guevara v. Warden, United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, filed Sept. 4, 2025
Brief of proposed amicus curiae the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in support of noncitizen journalist’s challenge to Executive Order purporting to interpret federal statute to hinder and dissuade press from gathering and reporting news.

REPORTS AND STUDIES

The Press Clause: The Forgotten First Amendment, 2024 Journal of Free Speech Law 561
Study by the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School arguing that the Press Clause can and should provide substantive protections separate and apart from the Speech Clause.