Justia Communications Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the trial court ordering the disclosure of a redacted version of a police report created by the police department at the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital documenting the police department's investigation into the death of a Whiting patient after a medical event, holding that the report, with minimal redaction, must be disclosed pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-200 et seq.After the trial court ordered the disclosure of a redacted version of the police report the Freedom of Information Commission appealed, arguing that the report should be released in its entirety under FOIA because it was not exempt for disclosure by the psychiatrist-patient communications privilege set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-146d(2) and 52-146e(a), as well as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq., as implemented by the Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. 160.101 et seq. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the police report was not a communication or record exempt from disclosure under FOIA; and (2) because the report included identifiable patient information, the report should be redacted in the manner described in this opinion. View "Comm'r of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania amended Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 to prohibit harassment and discrimination in the practice of law. Greenberg, a Pennsylvania-licensed attorney, regularly gives continuing legal education presentations about First Amendment protections for offensive speech. His presentations involve quoting offensive language from judicial opinions and discussing arguably controversial topics. Greenberg fears his speech at these presentations will be interpreted as harassment or discrimination under the Rule and alleges the Rule violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague.The district court enjoined enforcement of the Rule. The Third Circuit reversed. Greenberg lacks standing to bring his challenge. Rule 8.4(g) does not arguably prohibit anything Greenberg plans to do. The Rule covers only knowing or intentional harassment or discrimination against a person. Nothing in Greenberg’s planned speeches comes close to meeting this standard. Rule 8.4(g) does not generally prohibit him from quoting offensive words or expressing controversial ideas, nor will the defendants impose discipline for his planned speech. Any chill to his speech is not objectively reasonable or cannot be fairly traced to the Rule. View "Greenberg v. Lehocky" on Justia Law

McElhaney’s daughter, L.M., played high school softball. The school's “Parent–player Information” sheet stated: “Playing time is a non-negotiable for coaches to talk directly with parents about.” L.M.’s playing time decreased. McElhaney texted Coach Williams to express his displeasure. Williams responded, indicating McElhaney should reconsider either his tactics or his participation. McElhaney texted a conciliatory reply but Williams forwarded the messages to Principal Stepp, who banned McElhaney from a week’s worth of softball games. McElhaney unsuccessfully challenged but did not honor the suspension. Stepp spotted McElhaney and asked him to leave. Fearing arrest, McElhaney left. He filed suit (42 U.S.C. 1983), asserting that his communications with Williams constituted First Amendment-protected speech and that the school officials had impermissibly retaliated against him for exercising those speech rights and did not afford him due process before infringing on his property right to his season tickets. The district court held that the right to attend games after criticizing the coach was not clearly established, meaning any purportedly retaliatory acts did not violate McElhaney’s settled constitutional rights and that McElhaney did not experience a due process violation because any alleged injury could be remedied through a breach of contract action.The Sixth Circuit reversed. It is clearly established at a low level of generality that when a school employee interacts with a student, speech by the student’s parent about those interactions enjoys First Amendment protection. On remand, the court must resolve whether retaliation occurred. View "McElhaney v. Williams" on Justia Law

This original proceeding involves a protracted legal battle between several rural telephone companies and the Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”). Petitioners are telephone corporations that provide telephone service in rural areas. After the Rural Telephone Bank (“RTB”) had just dissolved and redeemed all shares of stock it had issued. Many telephone companies, including Petitioners, owned RTB stock. The Commission had clarified in a 2006 decision that all gains on the sale of public utility company assets that were never in rate base accrue to company shareholders. Relying on this decision, the companies that never had stock in rate base so stated in the application and did not disclose any of their redemption proceeds. The Commission penalized the companies in the amount of $2,752,000 for violating Rule 1.1. The companies challenged the decision in an administrative appeal, but the Commission denied rehearing.   The Fifth Appellate District annulled penalty decision and the decision denying rehearing. The court agreed that Petitioners lacked fair notice of their obligation to disclose their redemption proceeds in the 2007 application. The court explained that Petitioners’ redemption proceed amounts were irrelevant to a ratemaking determination because Petitioners’ shares were never in rate base. All gains or losses on the redemption accrued to Petitioners’ shareholders, not the ratepayers. No other allocation was legally allowed. The Commission should have instructed Petitioners to disclose their redemption proceeds in the Application if that is what the Commission wanted from Petitioners. But the Commission did not give fair notice to Petitioners of this disclosure requirement and penalized them for essentially failing to intuit the disclosure requirement. View "Kerman Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

StreetMedia and Turnpike Media were companies that are in the sign business: owners of billboards and other advertising signs. They contended that Colorado’s regulatory scheme violated the First Amendment because it treated billboards, so-called “advertising devices,” differently depending on whether the message was paid for or not. The district court disagreed and dismissed the case. Applying recent Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed: Colorado’s signage act was a constitutionally permissible policy choice—it furthered Colorado’s objectives of promoting roadside safety and aesthetics. View "StreetMediaGroup, et al. v. Stockinger, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court awarding attorney fees to the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) based on the court's ruling after an evidentiary hearing that the Maine County Commissioners Association Self-Funded Risk Management Pool (Risk Pool) had refused in bad faith to comply with HRDC's lawful request for records, holding that the Risk Pool's response constituted a bad faith refusal.HRDC submitted to the Risk Pool a request for records pursuant to the Maine Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), Me. Rev. Stat. 1, 400-414. The Risk Pool never denied or explicitly refused to comply with HRDC's request. Pursuant to FOAA's appeal procedure, HRDC filed a complaint against, among others, the Risk Pool. The Risk Pool filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that HRDC had failed to meet the FOAA requirement that the appeal be filed within thirty calendar days of the agency's "refusal, denial, or failure" to comply with the FOAA request. The motion was denied, and the court entered judgment in favor of HRDC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) HRDC's complaint was timely filed; and (2) the court did not err in awarding attorney fees based on the finding that the Risk Pool acted in bad faith in responding to HRDC's FOAA request. View "Human Rights Defense Center v. Maine County Commissioners Ass'n Self-Funded Risk Management Pool" on Justia Law

On January 18, 2019, then-16-year-old Sandmann and his classmates, attending the March for Life, had an interaction with a Native American man, Phillips, by the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. The boys were wearing “MAGA” hats and were impeding Phillips, who was attempting to exit the situation, which was becoming confrontational. A chaperone dispersed the students. Video of the incident went viral, and national news organizations, including the five defendants, published stories about the day’s events and the ensuing public reaction.Sandmann sued, alleging that the reporting, which included statements from Phillips about the encounter, was defamatory. The district court granted the news organizations’ joint motion for summary judgment, finding that the challenged statements were opinion, not fact, and therefore nonactionable. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The articles at issue did not “embrace” Phillips’s version of events; they describe a contentious encounter, the meaning of which was hotly disputed by participants and witnesses. The online articles embedded a video of the incident. Whether Sandmann “blocked” Phillips, did not “allow” him to retreat, or “decided” that he would not move aside and “positioned himself” so that he “stopped” Phillips are all dependent on perspective and are not “susceptible” of being proven true or false under the circumstances. View "Sandmann v. New York Times Co." on Justia Law

Pacific Networks Corp. and ComNet (USA) LLC, which are companies owned by the People’s Republic of China, held authorizations to operate communication lines in the United States. The Federal Communications Commission revoked these authorizations based on concerns that the carriers posed national security risks and had proven themselves untrustworthy. The carriers argue that the FCC’s reasoning was substantively arbitrary and was rendered with inadequate process.   The DC Circuit denied the petition for review. The court held that the FCC adequately explained its decision to revoke Pacific Networks’ and ComNet’s authorizations, and it afforded adequate process to the carriers. The court explained that the carriers do not seriously contest the FCC’s factual determinations. Instead, they object that the Commission had never revoked a Section 214 authorization based solely on misrepresentations. The carriers cite past cases where concerns about candor or trustworthiness produced only a fine. But those cases did not involve national security risks, which plainly heighten any trustworthiness concerns. Moreover, the court wrote that the FCC reasonably explained why no realistic agreement could have worked given the carriers’ proven lack of trustworthiness. View "Pacific Networks Corp. v. FCC" on Justia Law

International sought permission to erect two two-sided billboards in the City of Troy. These billboards were to be 14 by 48 feet in area and 70 feet in height when mounted; they did not conform to height, size, and setback requirements in the Ordinance. After the City denied its permit application and request for a variance, International sued, citing the First Amendment and arguing that the Ordinance’s variance procedure imposed an invalid prior restraint and that its permit exceptions were content-based restrictions on free speech. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment to the City on International’s prior-restraint claim but remanded for the court to consider whether the Ordinance, with the permit exceptions, survived strict scrutiny.The district court held that the permitting requirements, with the content-based exceptions. did not survive strict scrutiny but that the permit exceptions are severable, leaving intact the Ordinance’s height, size, and setback requirements. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. International’s proposed billboards do not satisfy those valid, content-neutral standards, View "International Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Troy" on Justia Law

FSSolutions faxed Dr. Thalman several times to ask him to join its network of preferred medical providers and administer various employment screening and testing services to its clients. Thalman declined the invitation and instead invoked the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), to sue FSSolutions for sending him unsolicited advertisements. The district court dismissed the complaint after finding that the faxes were not “unsolicited advertisements” within the meaning of the TCPA because they merely asked to purchase Thalman’s own services rather than inviting him to buy something from FSSolutions.The Seventh Circuit reversed. While a fax must directly or indirectly encourage recipients to buy goods, services, or property to qualify as an unsolicited advertisement, Thalman plausibly alleged that FSSolutions’s faxes did just that by promoting the company’s network of preferred medical providers, a network that would bring Thalman new business in exchange for a portion of the underlying client fees. “[M]indful that many plaintiffs’ attorneys view the TCPA opportunistically, the court cautioned against overreading its opinion, which applies to unsolicited faxes that an objective recipient would construe as urging the purchase of a good, service, or property by emphasizing its availability or desirability. View "Smith v. First Hospital Laboratories, Inc." on Justia Law