Most court opinions are made publicly available under the First Amendment so that people can understand what the law is and have trust in the judicial process. That is not the case for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) which decides when government agencies can spy on suspected foreign agents, and can sometimes target American citizens as well.
The lawsuits, filed by WeChat users and the company Tiktok, claim the executive orders violate the First and Fifth Amendment, and that the law is unconstitutionally overbroad. Both lawsuits are asking for declaratory relief, as well as a preliminary and permanent injunction barring the president from enforcing the orders.
In his ruling, United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote that the book raised “grave national security concerns,” and that Bolton stood to lose the profits from the book deal for breaking his nondisclosure agreement. Nevertheless, the judge argued that an injunction preventing further spread of the book would be futile.
According to the lawsuit, the DoJ is entitled to all monetary proceeds derived from the publication of his book because of contractual agreements Snowden signed while working as a government contractor.
Snodgrass says that Department of Defense unreasonably delayed the review of his upcoming book despite his efforts to include only unclassified material.
The Newseum Institute’s First Amendment expert, Gene Policinski, originally published this commentary on June 13, 2019, on the Newseum blog, […]
Certain charges in Assange's case might threaten legal protections afforded to those who report confidential information obtained by others.
The Newseum Institute’s First Amendment expert, Gene Policinski, originally published this commentary on January 11, 2019, on the Newseum blog, […]