A reporter from The Cincinnati Enquirer submitted a public records request to the Butler County Sheriff’s Office for an outgoing phone call placed by a Butler County 9-1-1 dispatcher. The County denied the request, claiming that the return call was both a trial preparation record and a confidential law enforcement investigatory record and, thus, was exempt from the public records laws. The Enquirer sought a writ of mandamus ordering the County to release the recording. The County subsequently released the recording. Judge Sage and the County then filed a motion to dismiss the Enquirer’s mandamus complaint as moot. The court of appeals overruled the motion, granted the writ of mandamus, and awarded statutory damages. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the outgoing 9-1-1 call was a public record and was not exempt from release, and therefore, the Enquirer was entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering release of the record; and (2) the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in awarding statutory damages but did abuse its discretion in not awarding attorney fees. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage" on Justia Law

Charter was Glendale’s cable service provider. Glendale sought a temporary restraining order preventing Charter from realigning its public, educational, and government channel numbers. Charter made several cross-claims. The trial court ruled in Charter’s favor on certain issues. The court of appeal affirmed. Charter sought to recover its costs of proof under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, under which, a party to a civil action that denies a pretrial request for admission without a reasonable basis can be ordered to pay to the propounding party the reasonable expenses incurred—including attorney fees and costs— in proving the matter covered by the request. Glendale argued that the request for costs of proof was barred under the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. 521, which limits the relief that may be obtained against local franchising authorities in actions arising from the regulation of cable service to injunctive and declaratory relief. The trial court rejected Glendale’s argument and granted the motion, in part. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the federal law precluded the award. View "City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Assocs." on Justia Law

Peter Ricci, a Teamsters member since 1983, refused to endorse Union President Doyle in 2002. For the next 10 years, Ricci claims, he suffered retaliation. He was fired from jobs he should have kept; he was not placed in jobs he should have gotten; and generally disfavored, even as compared with members with less seniority. In 2012, members of the Union distributed newsletters containing statements about the Riccis. Those newsletters were also published on a website hosted on GoDaddy’s web servers. The Riccis claim that GoDaddy refused to investigate Ricci’s complaints. In the Ricci’s pro se defamation and retaliation suit, the district court dismissed all claims against GoDaddy and federal claims against the Union. The Second Circuit affirmed. GoDaddy is immune from the defamation claims under the Communications Decency Act of 1996: “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1), and “No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” The labor claims were barred by the NLRA’s six‐ month statute of limitations, 29 U.S.C. 160(b). View "Ricci v. Teamsters Union Local 456" on Justia Law

In March 2013, Reeder received a letter from Phelon, the press secretary for Illinois Senate President Cullerton, informing Reeder that his request for Senate media credentials as a writer for the Illinois Policy Institute (IPI) was denied because IPI was registered as an Illinois lobbying entity. Phelon explained that Senate rules forbid credentials for anyone associated with a lobbying entity. Reeder tried again in January 2014 to obtain media credentials from the Illinois House of Representatives and Senate, arguing that IPI was no longer registered as a lobbyist. The Senate took the position that IPI was still required to register as a lobbyist given its retention of a lobbying firm that employed the same staff and office space as IPI itself. It again denied Reeder’s application. The Illinois House responded in kind. Reeder and IPI sued Illinois House Speaker Madigan and Cullerton, and their press secretaries under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of the press, and his rights to due process and equal protection. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, concluding that the denial of credentials qualified as legislative activity and entitled the defendants to immunity. View "Reeder v. Madigan" on Justia Law

The California State Personnel Board upheld Telish’s dismissal from his position with the California Department of Justice based on findings that he intimidated, threatened to release sexually explicit photographs of, and physically assaulted a subordinate employee with whom he had a consensual relationship. The essential issue was the admissibility of recorded telephone conversations between Telish and his former girlfriend and subordinate employee, L.D., which was received at the administrative hearing. The court of appeal affirmed denial of relief. A participant may properly record a telephone conversation at the direction of a law enforcement officer, acting within the course of his or her authority, in the course of a criminal investigation (Pen. Code 633). Section 633 does not limit the use of duly recorded communications to criminal proceedings. Although Telish contends the criminal investigation was a “sham,” the Board determined L.D. duly recorded the telephone conversations pursuant to the direction of DOJ in connection with a criminal investigation, and the Board’s finding was supported by substantial evidence. View "Telish v. Cal. State Personnel Bd." on Justia Law

The owners of an adult entertainment establishment in the 500-resident Village of Dix that features nude dancing and permits customers to bring their own alcoholic beverages onto the premises, challenged the enactment of three ordinances that ban public nudity, open containers of alcohol in public, and the possession of liquor in public accommodations. Plaintiffs argued that the public nudity ban violates the free speech protections and that the Village lacks statutory authority to pass the challenged alcohol restrictions. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit reversed as to the First Amendment challenge; at this early stage of the litigation, Dix has not established the necessary evidentiary basis for its assertion that nude dancing causes adverse secondary effects to the health, welfare, and safety of its citizens. The court affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs’ challenge to Dix’s alcohol regulations, the enactment of which fell within the parameters of Illinois law and was supported by a rational basis. View "Foxxxy Ladyz Adult World Inc.v. Village of Dix" on Justia Law

Protestors, including those concerned with sexual abuse by clergy and those advocating the Catholic ordination of women and acceptance of gay, lesbian, and transgender people, raised a facial First Amendment challenge to Missouri's 2012 House of Worship Protection Act" Mo. Rev. Stat. 574.035, which prohibits intentionally disturbing a "house of worship by using profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior . . . either within the house of worship or so near it as to disturb the order and solemnity of the worship services." The district court upheld the Act. The Eighth Circuit reversed, noting that there was no evidence of actual disturbances to houses of worship or that protesters interfered with churchgoers' entry or exit. The Act draws content based distinctions on the type of expression permitted near a house of worship, forbidding profane discourse and rude or indecent behavior which would disturb the order and solemnity of worship services and runs "a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process." It impermissibly requires enforcement authorities to look to the content of the message and cannot survive strict scrutiny since its content-based distinctions are not necessary to achieve an asserted interest in protecting the free exercise of religion. View "Survivors Network v. Joyce" on Justia Law

In 2007, Werkheiser was elected to the three-member Pocono Township Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Hess was elected in 2009; Bengel was elected in 2011. Supervisors are permitted to be employed by the Township. Werkheiser was appointed Township Roadmaster by the Board. Hess, as Chairman of the Board, Secretary, and Treasurer, received $36,000 per year in salary and benefits. In 2012, Hess took 10-days leave. Froio was selected to assume Hess’s administrative duties. Over Werkheiser’s objection, Bengel and Hess voted to hire Froio as Township Administrator, with compensation of $70,000. As Froio’s position developed, Hess’s responsibilities and workload decreased. Hess continued to be paid. Werkheiser objected to creation of a new position with greater expense and to paying Hess when his duties were being performed by Froio. Hess and Bengel began private deliberations to deny Werkheiser reappointment and to replace him with Bengel. In 2013, Werkheiser was formally denied reappointment. Werkheiser sued, asserting First Amendment retaliation and state law violations. The district court reasoned that there were important differences between public employees and elected officials; found that Werkheiser had established a constitutional violation; and denied a motion to dismiss. The Third Circuit held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; the contours of the First Amendment right at issue were not clearly established. View "Werkheiser v. Pocono Township" on Justia Law

In 2010, the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), by a vote of 219 to 212, following significant debate over whether PPACA included taxpayer funding for abortion. Driehaus, a Representative from Ohio and an anti-abortion Democrat, was an outspoken advocate of the “no taxpayer funding for abortion in the PPACA” movement, insisting that he would not vote for PPACA without inclusion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, expressly forbidding use of taxpayer funds “to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion” except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. Driehaus voted for the PPACA without the Amendment. President Obama later issued Executive Order 13535: “to … ensure that [f]ederal funds are not used for abortion services … consistent with a longstanding [f]ederal statutory restriction … the Hyde Amendment.” Debate continues as to whether PPACA includes federal funding for abortion. SBA, an anti-abortion public-advocacy organization, publicly criticized Driehaus, among other congressmen, for his vote. Driehaus considered SBA’s statement untrue and filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission, alleging violation of Ohio Revised Code 3517.21(B) (Unfair Political Campaign Activities). OEC found probable cause of a violation. SBA sued, claiming that the statute was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Driehaus counterclaimed defamation. Staying the other claims, pending agency action, the district court granted summary judgment, holding that associating a political candidate with a mainstream political position, even if false, cannot constitute defamation. The Sixth Circuit Affirmed. View "Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus" on Justia Law

CenturyLink, a private telecommunications provider, contracted with Clark County to provide inmate telephone services for the Clark County Detention Center (CCDC) and to make records of the inmates’ calls available to the governmental agency operating the jail. Blackjack Bonding, Inc. made a public records request to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), the governmental entity that runs the CCDC, seeking records regarding calls to all telephone numbers listed on the various bond agent jail lists posted in CCDC for certain years. LVMPD denied the request. Blackjack then sought mandamus relief to compel LVMPD to provide the requested records. The district court (1) granted in part Blackjack’s request, stating that the requested records were public records that LVMPD had a duty to produce; and (2) denied Blackjack’s motion for attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in granting in part Blackjack’s petition for a writ of mandamus, as the requested information was a public record subject to LVMPD’s legal custody or control; and (2) abused its discretion by refusing to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to Blackjack. View "LVMPD v. Blackjack Bonding" on Justia Law