ACLU, Knight Institute Petition Supreme Court to Review Constitutionality of Intelligence Agencies’ “Prepublication Review” System
WASHINGTON — Today, on behalf of five former government employees, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a challenge to the government’s system of “prepublication review,” which prohibits former public servants from writing or speaking publicly without first obtaining the government’s approval. The groups urge the court to overrule a 41-year-old Supreme Court decision, reconsider the legal standard applicable to government prepublication review, and hold that the prepublication review systems being challenged are unconstitutional.
“For 40 years, the government has treated a brief footnote in an old case as a blank check to subject millions of former government employees to government pre-approval before they write or speak publicly, without any real protections in place,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “But former employees like our clients are exactly the kinds of people the public needs to hear from in public debates about national security, foreign policy, and war. It’s long past time for the Supreme Court to make clear that the First Amendment rejects the current prepublication review system of unbridled prior restraints.”
The intelligence agencies’ prepublication review systems prohibit millions of former intelligence-agency employees and military personnel from writing or speaking about broad topics like “national security” without first obtaining government approval, regardless of whether they ever had access to sensitive information and even if they do not plan to discuss information they learned during their employment. As today’s petition explains, the prepublication review process has expanded dramatically in the last 40 years, in large part because courts have understood the underlying legal standard established in Snepp v. United States—the 1980 Supreme Court precedent the petition seeks to upend—to mean that these regimes are exempt from meaningful scrutiny under the First Amendment. What was initially a narrow censorship program largely limited to CIA spies has since grown into a sprawling system of prior restraints that restricts the speech of millions of people for their entire lives. As a result, many former public servants are subject to onerous and far-reaching restrictions on their speech that lack the safeguards that the Supreme Court has insisted on in related contexts.
The ACLU and the Knight Institute filed the case in April 2019 on behalf of Timothy H. Edgar and Richard H. Immerman, former employees of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Melvin A. Goodman, a former employee of the CIA; Anuradha Bhagwati, a former United States Marine; and Mark Fallon, a former employee of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. The plaintiffs continue to be subjected to prepublication review hurdles, and their experiences navigating the broken review process highlight the defects in the current system.
“The prepublication review system imposes an intolerable cost on the free speech rights of former public servants, and it distorts and impoverishes public debate about issues that could hardly be more important,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. “At least in their current form, these prepublication review regimes are fundamentally inconsistent with the First Amendment.”
The petition urges the court to grant certiorari and to reconsider Snepp, “which failed to scrutinize prepublication review as a system of prior restraint, did not adequately account for the public’s interest in the speech suppressed by the system, and is inconsistent with the Court’s more recent First Amendment jurisprudence.”
Link to the petition is here: /legal-document/edgar-v-haines-cert-petition
Free Speech
Edgar v. Haines
Free Speech
Edgar v. Haines
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.