Asking the Ninth Circuit to reverse a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction on behalf of a photographer seeking less restrictive access to federal lands for purposes of photographing the roundup of wild horses.
Urging the Ohio Supreme Court to recognize that bills of particulars function as supplements to public indictments and are subject to the public's First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings and records.
Urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to rehear en banc a three-judge panel decision finding that a federal prisoner's privacy interest in his mug shot outweighs the public interest in its disclosure such that it may be withheld under exemption 7(C) to FOIA.
Urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to find the Illinois Eavesdropping Act's criminalization of recording of conversations to which parties have no reasonable expectation of privacy unconstitutional
Urging the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to hold that the commonwealth citizenship requirement provision contained in Virginia's freedom of information laws is unconstitutional.
Urging the Virgin Islands Supreme Court to affirm a ruling that a retired judge failed to prove actual malice in his defamation claims against the local newspaper and one of its reporters for statements about the performance of his official duties, and asking the Court to extend the mandate of independent appellate de novo review beyond the issue of actual malice to include all constitutional issues in a defamation cause of action.
Urging the Maryland Court of Appeals to rule that a business owner lacks standing to sue for defamation based on statements about the company and to find that attorneys are privileged to provide journalists with copies of legal filings, as well as fair and accurate summaries of and comments on the documents and other judicial actions.
Urging the New Jersey Supreme Court to reject the Appellate Division's alarmingly restrictive view of who qualifies as a journalist and its implication that a trial court must conduct a full, potentially intrusive hearing to determine whether a person claiming protection under the state shield law is entitled to such.