June 10, 2020 Dababneh v. Lopez This is a pending defamation case in California stemming from a woman`s allegation of sexual misconduct against a state legislature in a complaint to the legislature and a press conference about the complaint. The trial court said the special motion to strike women under California`s anti-SLAPP law, noting that the legislative process and fair reporting privileges, which protect accurate accounts of official proceedings from libelation liability, do not apply to statements made at the press conference. The defendant appealed the judgment. The amicus curiae letter argues that the statements at the press conference are outside the scope of the law and that a fair report privileges speaking on matters of important public interest. He also asks the Court of Appeals to reject the plaintiff`s argument that the manner in which a Los Angeles Times reporter reported the sexual misconduct complaint somehow means that the privilege of fair reporting does not apply to the defendant`s statements at the press conference. Fair reporting privilege is a strong and important defence that should be interpreted broadly and should include statements to journalists about official procedures and documents. The NAACP Board of Directors established the Legal Defense Fund in 1940 specifically for tax purposes. In 1957, the DFL was completely separated from the NAACP and given its own independent board of directors and staff.[7] [7] Although DFL was originally intended to operate in accordance with NAACP policy, serious disputes arose between the two organizations after 1961.
These conflicts eventually led the NAACP to create its own in-house legal department, while LDF continued to operate as an independent organization and achieve significant legal victories. [4] [8] May 14, 2020 SPJ supports transparency lawsuit with LDF Grant SPJ`s Legal Defense Fund Committee approved a grant application from Barbara Petersen, a longtime open government advocate who recently resigned as director of the Florida First Amendment Foundation, as well as the current chairman of the ACLU board of directors in Florida, who intervened in a public meeting lawsuit against the city of Sebastian. Approved. Florida. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are suing three city council members who violated Florida`s transparency law by entering a locked city hall and holding a city council meeting that was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These members voted on many important issues, including suspending COVID-related emergency declarations, firing the City Manager and City Attorney, and appointing others to replace them. Petersen, who said it was the brazen and brazen violation of transparency law she saw during her more than 30 years working in Florida, hired two attorneys and sought help with legal fees. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the defendants violated the Sunshine Act and an injunction preventing any action to promote the acts that took place during the closed session, as well as attorneys` fees and costs.
SPJ supports the applicants. The number of complaints about violations of the transparency law in Florida has increased since emergency declarations and stay-at-home orders were issued. The filing of a complaint sends a message to local governments in Florida and nationally that open government advocates are always attentive and will continue to hold them accountable for violating the government`s right to openness and transparency, especially at such an important time. LDF is completely independent and separate from the NAACP. [2] Although LDF can trace its origins back to the NAACP Legal Department, founded in the 1930s by Charles Hamilton Houston,[3][4] Thurgood Marshall founded LDF as a separate legal entity in 1940 and LDF became completely independent of the NAACP in 1957. [2] November 23, 2020 Index Newspapers v. U.S. Marshals Service This case stems from lawsuits against journalists who covered the Black Lives Matter protests in Portland, Oregon, in June. In response to the journalists` lawsuit accusing security forces of deliberately and indiscriminately attacking neutral members of the press and legal observers, the Court of First Instance ordered the authorities to stop arresting, attacking, threatening and dispersing journalists during demonstrations. The U.S. Marshals Service and the Department of Homeland Security appealed.
SPJ signed an amicus curiae letter focused on distribution orders against journalists, arguing that under the First Amendment they must be closely tailored to gathering information and cannot be applied to journalists who have done nothing illegal but are not dispersing. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is the leading American legal organization fighting for racial justice. Founded in 1940 under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall, who later became the first African-American LDF in the United States, it was created at a time when the nation`s aspirations for equality and due process were stifled by widespread government-sponsored racial inequality. From that time until today, LDF`s mission has always been transformative: to achieve racial justice, equality and an inclusive society. Perhaps the most famous case in DFL history is Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly prohibited racial segregation in de jure public educational institutions. During the civil rights protests of the 1960s, the LDF represented „the legal arm of the civil rights movement“ and advised Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr., among others. [2] SPJ signed a letter initiated by the Committee of Reporters on Freedom of the Press to support public access to voir dire in United States v. Maxwell. The U.S. District Court rejected Maxwell`s request to seal the proposed jury questionnaire and proposed voir dire, which will be used in single court cases where significant publicity could harm the accused`s case. The court referred to the letter and concluded that a group of news organizations had rejected Maxwell`s request. In addition, in response to Maxwell`s request for sequestered voir dire, the court clarified that individual questioning of potential jurors would take place in open court. The court assured that it had taken into account the public`s right of access to criminal proceedings in its decision.
July 20, 2020 The case of Meinecke v. Thyes discusses the Wisconsin Open Records Law`s cost shifting provision, which allows plaintiffs who are essentially successful in lawsuits to decide their right of access to recover their costs and attorneys` fees.