Even Liberal Constitutional Scholars Agree About This Important Case
At the heart of the case against pro-life journalist David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress, is whether or not citizen journalists have the same rights as journalists working for the mainstream media.
Daleiden worked with a group of actors to infiltrate the fetal tissue and organ procurement business to expose how Planned Parenthood was profiting from the sale of aborted babies’ tissue and organs. In one of several lawsuits that have developed as a result, the National Abortion Federation alleges Daleiden violated the federal racketeering law, known as RICO, by posting video and research exposing the abortionists’ violations of federal law.
In an amicus brief filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, several constitutional law scholars, including some from Harvard, Stanford, and Cornell, have weighed in on the case. And while they may not agree with Daleiden’s position, they entirely support his right to collect and report the information.
“Amici do not agree with one another on all aspects of the controversial issue of abortion,” they wrote. “But amici are united in insisting that all Americans—no matter what their views on abortion—have an unfettered right in our society to have access to important information about controversial matters, including—but by no means limited to—abortion. Amici also agree that the press—broadly understood at this moment in the digital revolution—plays a pivotal role in providing such information to the general public. We further agree that in this way the press serves an important watchdog function when it exposes an excess of power asserted by officials in any branch of the government—legislative, executive or judicial. These convictions are highly relevant to the disposition of the case.”
The brief argued the federal courts lack the “broad power” to issue injunctions prohibiting the dissemination of information relevant to controversial matters of public concern. It also argued there were several “practical difficulties” in the court restraining Daleiden from releasing his video footage.
The scholars also revealed several historical examples of undercover investigations that were important to the public good. In conclusion, they urged the court to overturn the lower court’s opinion, and to end the injunction against Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress immediately.
Daleiden is represented by Thomas More Society attorneys Thomas Brejcha, Peter Breen, Matt Heffron and Corrina Konczal at the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco. They are seeking reversal of a preliminary injunction entered by District Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which bars Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress from publishing or disclosing undercover videos taken at National Abortion Federation annual conventions in 2014 and 2015.
“Daleiden argues, among other things, that the lower court decree constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech that wrongfully deprives American citizens of access to otherwise hidden facts at the pinnacle of newsworthiness and of surpassing public interest,” the attorneys said in an official press release Monday night.
