The post Today in Supreme Court History: October 28, 1787 appeared first on Reason Magazine.

On August 11, 2026, Scott Jennings falsely told a nationwide podcast audience that Hasan Piker was "out there calling for Black voters to be lynched." He falsely told his listeners that Mr. Piker had a "plan of returning our country to lynchings." And then he falsely told his social media followers that Mr. Piker "says the USA should resume lynchings against black people."

All of Mr. Jennings' accusations are false. Mr. Piker has never advocated the lynching of Black Americans, or anyone else. He has never called for a return to lynchings. And he has never proposed anything remotely resembling the supposed plan that Mr. Jennings falsely attributed to him.

Mr. Jennings did not merely mischaracterize something Mr. Piker said. He took a false, fabricated, and manipulated video of Mr. Piker, added a made-up quotation that Mr. Piker never uttered, and then made accusations that went beyond even what the manipulated footage purported to show. Mr. Jennings presented those accusations as fact, telling his viewers to "[l]isten for yourself" about Mr. Piker, knowing that he was playing a falsified video of Mr. Piker for those viewers, and completely disregarding the truth of Mr. Piker's actual words.

The underlying footage came from a broadcast nearly two years earlier on Twitch, an online streaming service owned by Amazon. On October 29, 2024, Mr. Piker was reacting to a debate between two Black political commentators, one liberal and one conservative. When the conservative commentator blamed "woke DAs" for policies supposedly harming Black Americans, Mr. Piker mocked him by sarcastically portraying that comment as nostalgia for an era before the civil rights movement. Laughing, Mr. Piker said:

He said, "We need more Klansmen, okay? Can we go back to a better time when lynchings were happening? This is what I like as a Black man. Also, there's no real racism in America." My man said, "woke DAs," dude. What are you saying?

Mr. Piker was plainly ridiculing the commentator's position. He was not endorsing it. The debate video remained visible behind him. Mr. Piker introduced the remarks with "He said," laughed as he delivered them, and concluded by questioning the commentator's argument. His viewers understood the sarcasm. Some laughed along. Others expressly described his comments as hyperbole. Still others predicted that someone would eventually remove the context and circulate the resulting footage as though Mr. Piker had been speaking sincerely.

That is precisely what happened. In August 2026, a 42-second video began circulating on social media that combined fragments of three separate Twitch broadcasts. The portions taken from Mr. Piker's October 2024 stream had been cropped, shortened, and rearranged. The underlying debate was removed from view. So was the contemporaneous audience commentary.

The words "He said," which identified the object of Mr. Piker's ridicule, were omitted. Mr. Piker's laughter and subsequent explanation were also removed. The resulting video portrayed sarcastic criticism of another as though it were an expression of Mr. Piker's own beliefs.

On August 11, 2026, Mr. Jennings broadcast that false video on The Scott Jennings Show, misrepresenting the manipulated video as authentic. But Mr. Jennings did not stop at repeating someone else's misleading edit. He added his own caption to the video, presented as a direct quotation from Mr. Piker:

PIKER: "LET'S GO BACK TO A BETTER TIME WHEN LYNCHINGS WERE HAPPENING" …

Mr. Piker never said those words. The original broadcast does not contain that statement. Neither does the manipulated video that Mr. Jennings chose to air. Mr. Jennings converted a sarcastic question, expressly attributed to and directed toward someone else, into a patently false first-person statement of Mr. Piker's own supposed beliefs, and then relayed that false statement to his viewers.

Mr. Jennings then went even further. After warning Black listeners to pay particular attention, Mr. Jennings accused Mr. Piker of "calling for Black voters to be lynched" and referred to "the Piker plan of returning our country to lynchings." Later that day, Mr. Jennings published the same false accusation on social media, telling his followers that Mr. Piker believed the United States "should resume lynchings against black people."

These were not expressions of disagreement with Mr. Piker's politics. Nor were they rhetorical characterizations of an admittedly controversial commentator. They were factual assertions about what Mr. Piker had said and advocated in his work. Each statement was demonstrably false.

The distinction matters. Mr. Jennings was free to criticize Mr. Piker, to condemn his political positions, or to argue that his commentary was offensive. Mr. Jennings was also free to play Mr. Piker's actual words, and provide his own commentary on what Mr. Piker actually said. Mr. Jennings was not free to do what he did: knowingly attribute to Mr. Piker statements that Mr. Piker never made, and then present those invented statements as evidence that Mr. Piker supports the racially motivated murder of Black Americans….

The post Hasan Piker Sues Scott Jennings appeared first on Reason Magazine.

On February 13, 2026, the United States Department of Defense ("Department") publicly designated Alibaba Group Holding Limited as a "Chinese military company" ("CMC"). On June 30, 2026, 10 U.S.C. § 4663 went into effect, barring the Department from contracting with any company who retained the same lobbyist as a CMC. Alibaba asserts that Section 4663 has caused lobbyists to withdraw from representing Alibaba for fear of losing other clients.

The court issued a preliminary injunction, concluding § 4663 likely violates the Free Speech Clause and the Petition Clause:

Alibaba is an e-commerce and cloud-computing company that provides products, technology, infrastructure, and services to consumers and businesses for civilian and commercial use. Alibaba provides U.S. companies and businesses with a platform to sell their products to consumers in China. Additionally, it provides commercial cloud services to companies, including U.S. companies, operating in China and other countries. Alibaba has developed open-source AI models, including Qwen, with a focus on "commercial applications that make it more efficient and secure for businesses to sell goods to consumers in China." Alibaba is publicly listed on both the New York Stock Exchange and Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

"Prior to being designated [a CMC], Alibaba had retained over two dozen lobbyists and multiple lobbying firms to represent its interests before Congress and the Executive Branch" [including] … "… the Executive Office of the President, the Federal Communication Commission [("FCC")], the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the Department of the Treasury, and [other entities]" …. "They presented Alibaba's views on legislation, rules, regulations, executive orders, and other government policies of commercial interest to the company. Specifically, they advocated regarding export expansion, small business export promotion, technology policy, access to U.S. capital markets, e-commerce-related issues, consumer-protection laws, and intellectual property." …

The Court finds that First Amendment scrutiny applies because Section 4663 regulates speech. By restricting Alibaba's ability to retain lobbyists, Section 4663 functionally restricts its political speech. "Discussion of public issues" is "pure speech" that is at "the core of the protection afforded by the First Amendment[.]" The First Amendment also protects "[t]he right to petition," that is, "the right of the people to inform their representatives in government of their desires with respect to the passage or enforcement of laws[.]"Lobbying government officials is therefore an activity fully protected by the First Amendment. FTC v. Super. Ct. Trial Laws. Ass'n (1990) ("It is, of course, clear that the association's efforts to … lobby District officials to enact favorable legislation … were activities that were fully protected by the First Amendment.")….

Here, Section 4663 appears to be directed at defense contractors, but its consequences are on Alibaba's speech. "[A] government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly" by "coerc[ing] a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf." NRA v. Vullo (2024)…. Section 4663's impact falls on the relationship between Alibaba and the third parties crucial to its speech rights. Thus, the Court finds that Section 4663 burdens Alibaba's speech….

Defendants observe that Alibaba is not completely banned from appearing before the federal government—it could hire more in-house lobbyists or find a firm that is willing to forgo defense contractor clients…. [But] Alibaba is unlikely to find a lobbyist willing to forgo any clients who might want to contract with the Department. {The statute applies to defense contractors who contract with "entities"—in other words, lobbying firms—who also contract with CMCs. Defense contractors would not risk their ability to enter into a contract with the federal government when there are plenty of capable lobbying firms available. The lobbying firm then must choose. One or more of its lobbyists can choose to represent Alibaba, but then the entire lobbying firm must forgo representing defense contractors. The only rational choice for a lobbying firm is to stop representing Alibaba.}

[Alibaba also] represents that it cannot hire the number of experienced in-house lobbyists needed to address the federal government for all its interests…. The reduction to Alibaba's speech is sufficient to demonstrate a colorable First Amendment claim….

The court then concluded that the law was subject to strict scrutiny:

"Content-based regulations are subject to the most exacting scrutiny because 'the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.'" In examining a statute, courts must also examine "restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others." "Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content." Thus, identity-based regulations may "demand strict scrutiny when they reflect the Government's preference for the substance of what the favored speakers have to say (or aversion to what the disfavored speakers have to say)." …

{Section 4663 is not a content-based restriction…. Section 4663 operates based solely on whether a CMC is involved. What the CMC (or non-CMC) plans to say does not affect whether Section 4663 applies.} [But] Section 4663 is a speaker-based restriction on speech—it is only applicable if a CMC seeks to retain a lobbyist. As a speaker-based restriction on political speech, Section 4663 is subject to strict scrutiny.

Defendants assert that Section 4663 should be considered under intermediate scrutiny, because Alibaba's "differential treatment" is justified by its "special characteristic[ ]," namely the potential involvement of a foreign adversary. Defendants again rely on TikTok, where the Supreme Court applied intermediate scrutiny despite finding that the divestiture statute was a speaker-based restriction, because the differential treatment was due to a content-neutral reason, namely TikTok's susceptibility to foreign control.

While Section 4663 also involves a foreign adversary, TikTok is distinguishable because political speech was not at issue. Id. ("emphasiz[ing] the inherent narrowness" of its holding and observing that "[a] law targeting any other speaker would by necessity entail a distinct inquiry and separate considerations"). Here, Defendants provide no authority to suggest that differential treatment with respect to political speech may be considered under intermediate scrutiny. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) states the opposite: "Laws that burden political speech are 'subject to strict scrutiny,'" and "the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker's identity." The Court thus applies strict scrutiny in determining whether Section 4663 violates the First Amendment.

{The Court recognizes that this is a close question. But for the context of political speech—specifically the ability and right to petition the government—Defendants' argument that intermediate scrutiny should apply would likely prevail, because Section 4663 is otherwise a content-neutral statute. As in TikTok, Section 4663 singles out a particular group of speakers, but not because of the content of their speech. Instead, the treatment is based on a particular characteristic of the speaker, i.e., their status as a CMC.} …

And the court held that the law failed strict scrutiny, because it was not narrowly tailored to the government interests in "(1) … prevent[ing] CMCs 'from accessing sensitive military information through their relationships with lobbyists,' and (2) … ensur[ing] that CMCs 'cannot subtly influence any of [the Department's] decisions related to national security by influencing a lobbyist'":

[T]he government cannot impose a restriction on speech based solely on "mere conjecture." Rather, it must "point to record evidence or legislative findings demonstrating the need to address a special problem."

Here, Defendants fail to meet their burden. Defendants provide only one exhibit in support of their opposition: the joint explanatory statement submitted as part of the legislative record for the Act. The statement provides an overview of Section 4663 and then "direct[s] the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than one year after the enactment of this Act, on the national security risks posed by consulting firms who simultaneously contract with the Department of Defense and the Chinese government or its proxies or affiliates."

Of note, the Comptroller General is directed to study consulting firms, not lobbyists. The statement does not express any findings by the Comptroller General or Congress about the risks posed by lobbyists retained by CMCs. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendants were unable to confirm whether a report by the Comptroller General had been submitted to Congress by December 23, 2025, one year after the Act's enactment; nor did Defendants provide a copy of the report. Other than the statement, Defendants do not provide any evidence of the national security risks or other compelling government interests….

[Moreover, d]efendants do not offer any evidence demonstrating that alternative [and less speech-restrictive] means were contemplated, much less rejected for being insufficient…. Meanwhile, Alibaba submits evidence that less alternative restrictions may exist. With respect to CMCs, Nebraska has required lobbyists representing entities on the 1260H List to file an acknowledgment that they are representing a foreign adversary. The Supreme Court "has upheld registration and disclosure requirements on lobbyists" as a "less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech." Defendants present no reason why a disclosure requirement, like Nebraska's, would be inadequate for the federal government.

Instead, Defendants summarily conclude that Alibaba's proposed disclosure requirement would not suffice because "there would still be access and the potential for influence." This speculation is insufficient to support a restriction on the First Amendment….

Carter G. Phillips, Christopher A. Eiswerth, Jennifer J. Clark, and Sheila Anil Gogate Armbrust (Sidley Austin LLP) represent Alibaba.

The post Alibaba and the Forty Lobbyists, and the First Amendment appeared first on Reason Magazine.

West Virginia's Daniel's Law …, which is designed "to enhance the safety and security" of judicial and law enforcement officials, prohibits the disclosure by any person or entity of the home addresses or unpublished telephone numbers of … {"any active, formerly active, or retired judicial officer, prosecutor, … public defender, … or law-enforcement officer"} if a reasonable person would believe that such a disclosure would create a risk of harassment or harm. The law authorizes protected persons to bring a civil action for damages….

As distinct from the Daniel's Laws in other States, … West Virginia's version does not require that the Covered Person, upon discovering an improper disclosure, notify the person or entity that disseminated the information and request that the person or entity delete the information before liability arises. In addition, for liability to arise under West Virginia's version, the person or entity need not know that they have disclosed a Covered Person's information. The only limiting principle of § 5A-8-24(e) liability is that the information must have been disclosed "under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that providing such information would expose another to harassment or risk of harm to life or property." …

For generations now, home addresses and telephone numbers have been disseminated to the public, initially through Whitepages and Yellow Pages and now through "people search" services on the Internet. The public has thus long had the facility to look up the name of a person and obtain that person's address and telephone number. Sharing that information has been the gateway to communication and the exchange of ideas or messages that have long been protected by the First Amendment. In the digital age, such information may now be shared with greater efficiency, but the tradition continues with the understanding that it is protected speech.

In a similar vein, it has long been custom and practice to record for public examination the names and addresses of persons buying, selling, and financing real property. And it has been the tradition to share publicly information about taxes, appraisals, liens, and voting.

To be sure, while the dissemination of such information is protected speech necessary to the exchange of ideas, it can also contribute to abuse and the pursuit of harmful and, indeed, malicious ends, as exemplified by the murder of Daniel Anderl. To address such abuse, governments have enacted laws like Daniel's Law in an effort to restrict the dissemination of home addresses and unpublished telephone numbers of specified public officials who serve in roles important to society. And the parties here agree that those governments have a compelling interest in enhancing the safety and security of such officials. The task, therefore, is to draw an appropriate line between protecting the dissemination of such information while, at the same time, excepting from dissemination the same information when it creates a potential for harm of specified public officials.

Because of the high value that our Constitution and longstanding practices place on the free dissemination of information and the exercise of free speech, we draw the line with the greatest caution, requiring that governments regulate speech about the home addresses and telephone numbers of designated public officials in a manner that is the least restrictive of speech.

In this case, West Virginia was fully justified in attempting to regulate such speech in light of the compelling government interest in enhancing the safety and security of certain public officials, but its efforts reached more broadly then necessary to accomplish the task; it did not employ the least restrictive means of doing so. For that reason and only that reason, we agree with the district court that West Virginia could have regulated more narrowly to accomplish its purpose and thereby be less restrictive of what is otherwise protected speech. Thus, we agree that the provision of West Virginia's Daniel's Law at issue here … violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The court concluded that the law is a speech restriction, not just a restriction on "data":

[Jackson argues] that speech must be communicative such that it "convey a particularized message" with "the likelihood … that the message would be understood by those who" received it. Since Daniel's Law regulates disclosures of "pure facts" that lack a particularized message, he argues, the law is not subject to any First Amendment analysis….

[But] the Supreme Court has clearly held that the scope of "speech" regulated by the First Amendment is broader and includes data, reasoning that facts are "the beginning point for much of the speech that is most essential to advance human knowledge and to conduct human affairs." Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc (2011). Indeed, the Court has noted more specifically that statutes like West Virginia's Daniel's Law, which address only the disclosure of information, involve the regulation of speech protected by the First Amendment, observing, "If the acts of 'disclosing' and 'publishing' information do not constitute speech, it is hard to imagine what does fall within that category …." Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001).

The court then concluded that the law was content-based:

West Virginia's Daniel's Law …, on its face, distinguish[es] between different disclosures based on communicative content alone. It restricts disclosure of certain kinds of information (home addresses and unlisted telephone numbers), and it does so for certain individuals (judicial and law enforcement officers and their families)….

This means, for example, that a disclosure that a grocery store clerk lives at 100 Main Street is permitted, while a disclosure that a police officer lives at 100 Main Street is prohibited. The only difference between the two disclosures is the communicative content, or what the disclosures mean. In the hypothetical, the latter disclosure is prohibited because it identifies 100 Main Street as being the home address of the police officer, while the earlier disclosure is permitted because it identifies 100 Main Street as belonging to the grocery store clerk.

The court held that the law wasn't limited to "commercial speech" (which generally refers to commercial advertising), a category of speech that is entitled to lower protection:

While a speaker's economic motivation for speech may be a relevant factor in determining whether speech is commercial, economic motivation alone is insufficient to justify a categorization of that speech as commercial. Furthermore, because, even under Jackson's argument, only some of the regulated speech would be commercial, that fact does not render the law subject to the intermediate scrutiny of commercial speech. When a statute "applies with equal force to both commercial and noncommercial messages" with "no exception for noncommercial speech," the fact that some of the regulated speech is commercial does not justify an application of intermediate scrutiny….

And the court held that the law, as a content-based speech restriction, had to pass strict scrutiny, which is to say that (among other things) it had to be the "least restrictive means" of serving a "compelling government interest"; and the court held that the law failed such scrutiny:

[T]he parties agree, as do we, that the law's purpose of enhancing the safety of judicial and law enforcement officials is a compelling government interest …. [But] West Virginia's Daniel's Law does not employ the least restrictive means of serving the law's purpose.

Section 5A-8-24(e) imposes liability on a data broker immediately upon its disclosure of addresses and telephone numbers, regardless of whether the data broker had knowledge that the information related to Covered Persons. Whenever an entity such as a data broker collects names and addresses of all persons in a particular town using public land records and then publishes that information in some form of a directory, it undoubtedly violates the law because that directory includes, albeit unknowingly, information about, for instance, a police officer or public defender…. When a restriction on speech creates liability without a knowledge requirement, speakers are understandably incentivized to engage in self-censorship to avoid inadvertently incurring liability. See Counterman v. Colorado (2023) (noting that "prohibitions on speech have the potential to chill, or deter, speech outside their boundaries")….

Jackson argues, however, that the law is much more limited because it imposes liability only if "a reasonable person would believe that providing such information would expose another to harassment or risk of harm to life or property."

That provision, however, is hardly limiting, … because every disclosure of a person's name and address on the Internet exposes that person to harassment or a risk of harm…. [Indeed, in his complaints, Jackson] alleged that the mere disclosure of home addresses and unpublished telephone numbers "exposed [him] and his peers to harassment and/or risk of harm to life or property." And to support that unremarkable proposition, he quoted the FTC's report on "Data Brokers," which highlights the "potential risks to consumers from data brokers' collection and use of consumer data," including the fact that "people search products can be used to facilitate harassment, or even stalking, and may expose domestic violence victims, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, public officials, or other individuals to retaliation or other harm." Indeed, Jackson added that the FTC's report explains why the defendants' disclosures are "so dangerous." Thus, the argued "limitation" in § 5A-8-24(e) is actually not limiting but universal, as it is inevitable that every disclosure of personal information on the Internet poses an additional risk of harassment or harm to the person whose information is disclosed.

Additionally, States other than West Virginia that have enacted Daniel's Laws have uniformly required that, before liability attaches to a disclosure of home addresses and unpublished telephone numbers, Covered Persons give notice of their request that the data broker (or any other disclosing party) remove the information. Only on the failure to comply does liability attach. But West Virginia's Daniel's Law alone does not require notification as a precondition of liability. Thus, this aspect of the law fails to provide the least restrictive means of furthering the law's compelling interest.

While we hasten to note that requiring notice prior to imposing liability is one method for narrowing the law, it is not the only way. But it is the way that Congress and virtually every other State has chosen to narrow their laws and render them less speech-restrictive.

At bottom, we agree with the district court's conclusion:

[D]ue to its lack of a notice requirement, [§ 5A-8-24(e)] of West Virginia's Daniel's Law is far more restrictive then its comparators [in other States] and is definitively not the least restrictive means of achieving its compelling interest. Section [5A-8-24(e)] of West Virginia's Daniel's Law therefore fails strict scrutiny even as other more narrowly tailored federal and state statutes aiming at the same compelling interest pass constitutional muster….

The paragraph endorsing the district court's conclusion strongly suggests that the panel endorsed laws limited to situations where a covered person first demands that covered material be removed. But it's not clear whether the panel would endorse broad versions of such laws, which apply even when the address or phone number is relevant to a matter of public concern (see Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick (N.J. 2025), which upheld such a broad law), or whether it would insist that there be an exception for such public-concern situations (as there is in the federal version of Daniel's Law).

Samir I. Deger-Sen (Latham & Watkins LLP) argued on behalf of the defendants.

The post W. Va. Law Restricting Disclosing Home Addresses and Phone Numbers of Judges and Police Struck Down, but … appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The post Today in Supreme Court History: October 27, 1787 appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The defendant appeals from harassment prevention orders issued pursuant to G. L. c. 258E (258E orders), by a judge of the District Court, requiring the defendant, among other things, to stay away from a city zoo where she had regularly protested the treatment of animals in its care. The plaintiff, a veterinarian who worked at the zoo, sought and obtained an ex parte 258E order against the defendant, which was later extended following a hearing after notice….

When reviewing whether the evidence was sufficient to support the issuance [or extension] of a 258E order, we consider [consistently with the statutory requirements] whether, "by a preponderance of the evidence, together with all permissible inferences," the judge could have found "that the defendant had committed '[three] or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that [did] in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.'" …

Where the harassing acts consist of speech, each act must be the type of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, i.e., generally either "true threats" or "fighting words." True threats include "direct threats of imminent physical harm" and "words or actions that—taking into account the context in which they arise—cause the victim to fear such [imminent physical] harm now or in the future and evince intent on the part of the speaker or actor to cause such fear." Fighting words are limited to personal insults that are inherently likely to incite a violent reaction….

The plaintiff's affidavit described the following four alleged incidents of harassment.

First, in July 2024, while the plaintiff was working at the zoo, the defendant began "yelling and screaming" at the plaintiff that she "should lose [her] job and right to be a veterinarian[,] … that [she] was abusing [her] power[,] and that [she was] abusing and killing the animals."

Second, in September 2024, while the plaintiff was working at the zoo, the defendant began "telling other [zoo] visitors falsehoods about the elephants being beaten." The plaintiff told the visitors that the allegations were not true, but the defendant "immediately yelled at [her] over [her] explanation to the visitors and got within inches of [her] face to continue yelling" at her. About forty-five minutes later, the defendant reapproached the plaintiff and got "in [her] face yelling at [her] about how [she was] a bad veterinarian and [her] cruelty towards animals." The plaintiff alleged that she "felt like [the defendant] was trying to intimidate [her] to quit [her] job." The defendant was "in [her] face videotaping" the plaintiff, so the plaintiff called 911. While the plaintiff was on the phone, the defendant "chased after [the plaintiff]."

Third, also in September 2024, the defendant "formally fil[ed] a written complaint to the [veterinary licensing] Board" that "was all lies and falsehoods."

Fourth, in November 2024, a television news crew was at the zoo reporting on the elephants when the defendant disrupted an interview and began to "yell and scream at [the plaintiff] that [she was] not a licensed veterinarian and that she [did] not have a license to practice in [Massachusetts], and that [she was] abusing and murdering elephants." The defendant also "threaten[ed] [the plaintiff's] career."

Of the four incidents alleged, only the second arguably constituted harassing conduct—getting within inches of the plaintiff's face while yelling and chasing after the plaintiff. The remaining alleged conduct constituted protected speech, not rising to the level of fighting words or true threats…. [T]hreats containing ideas or advocacy causing fear of economic loss or unfavorable publicity are not "true threats" …. As a result, the judge erred in finding that the incidents described by the plaintiff amounted to three requisite acts of harassment pursuant to G. L. c. 258E….

The court also concluded the court violated plaintiff's due process rights:

[At the motion hearing, t]he plaintiff's attorney recited the procedural background and the judge began to review the plaintiff's affidavit. The plaintiff's lawyer then started to relate that the defendant had been charged with violating the ex parte order, when the defendant stated, "I object to that, Your Honor." The judge admonished the defendant, "No, no. First of all, … you're going to understand what the rules are; okay? … The rules are, you're not to interrupt at any time." The judge then explained, "You don't, in a civil case, have the opportunity to say you object…. It doesn't work that way…. That's in a criminal case."

The judge then turned to the plaintiff and asked her about the Federal trial in which the plaintiff had testified the previous year. [This appears to me to be Rowley v. City of New Bedford (D. Mass. 2024). -EV] The plaintiff explained that the defendant had filed a lawsuit against the city for violation of the Endangered Species Act and that the suit was resolved in favor of the city. The plaintiff's counsel offered to provide the judge with a copy of the decision.

When the judge asked whether the defendant had a copy, the defendant replied, "Yes, ma'am, I do. Yes, Your Honor," and added, "I object to it being relevant." The judge responded, "What did I say about objections?" and "I decide whether something is relevant[,] right?" The defendant then stated that she disagreed that the Federal court decision was relevant to the plaintiff's request for a 258E order. The judge replied, "You can disagree all you want, but—and you can voice that, I don't want you [to] think you can't voice it…. But you can't say you object."

The judge then said that she had reviewed the defendant's motion to vacate and asked why she should not extend the 258E order. Just as the defendant began to explain that the plaintiff's claims did not meet the legal standard, the judge cut off the defendant and asked a series of questions, pointedly asking why the plaintiff would accuse the defendant if the allegations were not true. When the defendant attempted to explain the context and her theory that it was in retaliation for the Federal lawsuit, the judge again cut off the defendant, telling her to "[s]top talking," and that she (the judge) did not need to know about the elephants at the zoo or the plaintiff's background as a veterinarian.

The judge then invited the plaintiff's counsel to cross-examine the defendant. The cross-examination centered around the Federal lawsuit (concerning the elephants) and the plaintiff's status and licensure as a veterinarian. The plaintiff's counsel then presented the testimony of the plaintiff, who affirmed the truth of her affidavit. The plaintiff expressed how the "entire situation [was] causing [her] immense stress."

At the conclusion of counsel's direct examination, the judge asked the plaintiff, "[Y]ou are concerned for your safety because of the actions of [the defendant] physically, verbally, and on social media; is that right? … And there have been several instances where she has intimidated you; is that right?" After the plaintiff answered in the affirmative, the judge stated, "I have no doubts that you're a competent veterinarian or [the zoo] wouldn't have hired you," and "don't you for one minute second guess your training. Nobody in this room is a veterinarian and knows anything about what you do, okay? … You got your degree. You worked hard for it. Move on with that." …

[T]he judge appeared to shift the burdens by accepting the plaintiff's affidavit and then challenging the defendant to disprove the allegations contained within it. The defendant had no burden to testify or present evidence. Furthermore, due process required that she be heard on her legal argument that the plaintiff's claims did not meet the elements for a 258E order.

Instead, the defendant was repeatedly shut down when attempting to make her valid legal points, incorrectly told that she had no right to make objections, and subjected to questioning pointedly challenging her veracity while assuming the veracity of the plaintiff. Then, the plaintiff's counsel was invited to cross-examine the defendant. The plaintiff, who had the burden, testified after the defendant and was not cross-examined at all. The record reflects that the defendant did not have a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Collectively, these irregularities raise troubling due process concerns….

For more on such unconstitutional speech-based injunctions in harassment cases, see this article.

The post Harassment Restraining Order Based Largely on Speech Critical of Zoo Veterinarian, appeared first on Reason Magazine.