The following list provides a sampling of noteworthy cases that LSKS has handled involving efforts to regulate and censor content.

Riggs v. Valdez, 2011 WL 1598630 (D. Idaho Apr. 27, 2011). LSKS represented the Associated Press when it intervened in a contentious class action lawsuit involving claims of inhumane and abusive conditions in a privately-run state prison so that it could oppose the defendants’ request to impose a gag order in the case. The court agreed with AP that the defendants had not presented a sufficient basis for imposing the broad prior restraint on speech that they had requested.

United States v. Corbin, 620 F. Supp. 2d 400 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). LSKS successfully challenged a motion brought by a state legislator seeking to enjoin Newsday and News 12 Long Island from publishing photographs or video footage showing him being led to court in handcuffs during a “perp walk” conducted by federal agents. After expedited briefing and argument, the court concluded that the requested injunction would constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint, and that many alternatives existed to secure the defendant’s right to a fair trial without restricting press coverage.

WBAL-TV v. Queen Ann Village Association (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Apr. 23, 2009). The same day a Maryland trial court refused to lift a prior restraint on Baltimore’s WBAL-TV, which enjoined it from broadcasting portions of an audio recording of a civil hearing, LSKS sought and obtained an emergency ruling from the Court of Special Appeals reversing the trial court, and allowing the tapes to be broadcast on the evening news programs.

American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado v. City and County of Denver, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (D. Colo. 2008). LSKS represented thirteen political advocacy organizations in challenging the restrictions imposed upon parades, marches and public demonstrations in the vicinity of the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. After winning multiple concessions and accommodations of the demonstrators’ demands from the City and the U.S. Secret Service, the remaining challenged restrictions were found not unconstitutional by the U.S. District Judge following a three-day trial.

Multimedia Holdings Corp. v. Circuit Court of Florida, 544 U.S. 1301 (2005). LSKS represented a coalition of media organizations as amicus curiae in support of an application to stay a prior restraint issued by a Florida trial judge. In an opinion denying the application on factual grounds, Circuit Justice Kennedy acknowledged that informal procedures intended to chill speech, including an earlier order issued by the trial court in that case, may constitute prior restraints in violation of the First Amendment.

Associated Press v. District Court for the Fifth Judicial District of Colorado, 542 U.S. 1301 (2004). On behalf of The Associated Press, CBS, the Los Angeles Times, ESPN, and others, LSKS sought United States Supreme Court review of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that upheld an order prohibiting the press from publishing pretrial hearing transcripts in NBA star Kobe Bryant’s criminal proceedings. Following an emergency opinion by Circuit Justice Breyer expressly recognizing the important constitutional interests at stake, the trial judge vacated his order with respect to the lion’s share of the materials at issue.

Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2003). LSKS represented a newspaper publisher in a civil rights action against a sheriff and his deputies who removed virtually an entire edition of the newspaper from circulation by purchasing most of the copies available for sale. The Fourth Circuit reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the mass purchase by the officers, even though carried out while they were off duty and out of uniform, was unconstitutional state action designed to suppress the publisher’s viewpoint and retaliate against him for prior articles critical of the officers. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the publisher thereafter and the defendants paid the publisher $435,000 in settlement of the action.