ACLU and NAACP Secure Access to Public Eviction Records in Data-Scraping Case
COLUMBIA, S.C. — The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP agreed to settle their landmark First Amendment litigation against South Carolina Court Administration in exchange for historical eviction records and timely access to all new eviction filings. The settlement concludes NAACP v. Kohn, a case that pressed for expansion of digital free speech rights and improved access to court documents.
The South Carolina NAACP will now have access to all of the public docket information it requires to provide services to tenants in eviction proceedings, and to engage in advocacy to enforce fair housing laws. The South Carolina NAACP was represented in the lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of South Carolina, and the NAACP.
“At the heart of this case is our ability to help the thousands of tenants in South Carolina who face eviction every year,” said Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina NAACP. “With this agreement, we can begin the work of reaching out to tenants in our communities who have an eviction action filed against them, so that they know their rights and have a chance to connect with the services they need.”
"I am proud that we were able to vindicate important First Amendment concerns while also ensuring that the South Carolina NAACP has the tools it needs to conduct its important and urgently needed advocacy around South Carolina’s eviction crisis,” said Allen Chaney, legal director of the ACLU of South Carolina.
The lawsuit asserted that the Court Administration’s blanket ban on scraping the Public Index — the state’s repository of court filings — violated the First Amendment by restricting access to, and use of, public information, and prohibiting recording public information in ways that enable subsequent speech and advocacy.
“The district court properly recognized that the South Carolina NAACP’s proposed scraping of public court records is activity protected by the First Amendment. It is also a vital method of gathering public data efficiently, and enabling digital-era research and journalism in the public interest,” said Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.
“This case broadened First Amendment protections for the right to access important, public court records,” said Joe Schottenfeld, NAACP assistant general counsel. “And those protections served to secure the South Carolina NAACP’s efforts to reduce evictions across the state.”
Scraping is widely employed by researchers, reporters, and watchdog groups to capture and evaluate population-level data on websites that would otherwise be impracticable to thoroughly and quickly gather using manual methods. The South Carolina NAACP sought to scrape public housing court records so that it can identify tenants who have had eviction actions filed against them, to help them fight those eviction actions, and conduct statewide advocacy.
The state of South Carolina is in the midst of a statewide eviction crisis, with Black and women renters being evicted from their homes at disproportionate rates. Evictions result in cascading harms for tenants, their families, and the communities in which they live, leading to homelessness, negative impacts on health, poor educational and employment opportunities, and entrenched poverty.
To respond to the eviction crisis and its consequences for tenants, in February 2021 the South Carolina NAACP launched the , which provides free eviction-prevention services, investigates and responds to community-wide patterns of eviction filings, and advocates for greater access to fair housing and more just eviction policies, including through Fair Housing Act litigation.
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NAACP v. Kohn
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NAACP v. Kohn
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.