Brief Urges Minnesota Supreme Court to Reject Attempt to Compel Disclosure of Reporters’ Communications in Major Case for Press Freedom
ACLU Represents Media Organization Unicorn Riot in Latest Filing in Years-Long Legal Battle Stemming from 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline Protests
ST. PAUL, Minn. — The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Minnesota, together with the law firm Simatic & Biersdorf, PA, filed a brief in the Minnesota Supreme Court today on behalf of nonprofit media organization Unicorn Riot, which seeks to quash a subpoena from oil company Energy Transfer stemming from the 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests. The brief asserts that the First Amendment and the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act (MFFIA) protect Unicorn Riot from Energy Transfer’s attempts to subpoena sensitive communications, recordings, and other unreleased newsgathering materials from DAPL protests.
“The First Amendment and Minnesota’s shield law protect journalists from attempts to use the courts to compel the disclosure of sensitive newsgathering information. A free press and the free flow of information to the public both depend on journalists’ ability to capture content and tell stories without fear of costly litigation that puts their unpublished materials at risk,” said Matthew Segal, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative.
Unicorn Riot journalists reported on the ground from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, gathering and publishing first-hand accounts. In 2019, pipeline operator Energy Transfer sued individuals and entities that were allegedly involved with the protests.
In 2021, as part of the lawsuit, Energy Transfer issued subpoenas to Unicorn Riot and one of its member journalists seeking vast disclosures of unpublished materials. Unicorn Riot refused to surrender its material, and in 2022 – roughly six years after the protests – Energy Transfer moved to compel disclosure in Minnesota. In its motion papers, Energy Transfer alleged that Unicorn Riot had trespassed on its property while covering the protests. The Minnesota Court of Appeals that the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act prohibits the compelled disclosure of newsgathering materials. Energy Transfer sought review at the Minnesota Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
“This case is about more than just our small media organization. It represents the broader fight for the right to gather and disseminate information freely, without corporate interference — an essential cornerstone of press freedom,” said Unicorn Riot.
The brief highlights that Energy Transfer seeks to conjure an unwritten exception to the MFFIA. The brief explains that the MFFIA contains only two exceptions to the law that would allow compelled disclosure — one for certain criminal cases and one for certain defamation cases — and because neither exception applies here, the Minnesota Supreme Court should uphold the court of appeal’s reading of the law.
The purpose of the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act, the brief continues “is to promote newsgathering and publication, and that purpose would be severely undermined if the statutory shield were to evaporate whenever, in the course of newsgathering, a reporter allegedly trespasses, speeds, jaywalks, or double-parks.”
“Protecting journalists and their sources makes all of us better informed and better members of our community,” said ACLU-MN Staff Attorney Alicia Granse.
The brief is online here: /documents/energy-transfer-lp-v-unicorn-riot-respondents-brief
Related Documents
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.