Rodríguez-Cotto v. González-Colón

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Filed: Aug. 15, 2025

Background: In May 2020, two journalists challenged the constitutionality of a Puerto Rico law that criminalizes sharing information during state-declared emergencies that is deemed false. The journalists argued that the law — Article 5.14(a) of the Law of the Puerto Rico Department of Public Safety — risks censoring reporting about natural disasters and other public emergencies, including truthful reporting that counters government misinformation. 

In April 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico sided with the journalists, holding that the law violates the First Amendment because it imposes a content-based restriction on protected speech without adequate justification. The court’s order blocked authorities from enforcing the law. 

Puerto Rico appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Our Position: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, in collaboration with the University of Virginia School of Law First Amendment Clinic and joined by 18 news and media organizations, filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the First Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision in favor of the journalists. 

• If permitted to stand, Article 5.14(a) would disrupt the provision of vital information in times of greatest need.

• Though ostensibly targeted at intentional or reckless false statements, Article 5.14(a) could be used to target the inevitable honest mistake in rapidly developing breaking news situations.

• Article 5.14(a) is not necessary to address the perceived problem and is far from the least restrictive alternative.

From the Brief: “[W]hile journalists have every incentive to report accurate information during a crisis, facts change quickly on the ground and honest mistakes will invariably occur. It is therefore essential that the law provide breathing room for those inadvertent errors. Article 5.14(a) would do the opposite. It would give the government a potent weapon to target news organizations based on reporting perceived as unfavorable and would operate to suppress truthful public discourse by striking the wrong balance.”