The ABCs of Free Speech with Emerson Sykes

ST. PAUL, Minn. – The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today that the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act (MFFIA) does not have an exception for journalists who are alleged to have engaged in illegal activity, such as trespassing, when gathering news. The decision rejects an attempt by oil company Energy Transfer to compel the disclosure of sensitive reporter communications and newsgathering materials stemming from the 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline protests. “The Minnesota Supreme Court made the right call: Those who seek to pry sensitive information away from newsgatherers cannot defeat the robust protections of the MFFIA simply by alleging that the newsgatherers trespassed or jaywalked in pursuit of a story,” said Matthew Segal, co-director of the ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative. “A free press demands that we protect journalists from attempts to misuse the law to strongarm them into compliance.” The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Minnesota, and law firm Simatic & Biersdorf, PA, representing Unicorn Riot and one of its member journalists at the Minnesota Supreme Court, argued on their behalf that the MFFIA’s limited exemptions do not apply in this case. Instead, the law “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.” The legal team presented oral argument to the Minnesota Supreme Court in December 2024. “For a decade we have been working to cover social struggles like the Indigenous-led movement against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Minnesota Supreme Court reaffirmed this news gathering work is protected by the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act. We will keep asserting the freedom of the press to cover these crucial events and political movements,” said Dan Feidt, Unicorn Riot reporter and co-founder. 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 brought a lawsuit in North Dakota against Greenpeace and other entities that were allegedly involved with the protests, eventually issuing subpoenas to Unicorn Riot seeking vast disclosures of unpublished materials. Unicorn Riot refused to surrender its material, and 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. A lower court ruled that state law prohibits the compelled disclosure of newsgathering materials, and Energy Transfer sought review at the Minnesota Supreme Court. Earlier this year, Energy Transfer’s North Dakota lawsuit went to trial, and a jury returned a $667 million verdict against Greenpeace. Greenpeace has filed post-trial motions, which are currently pending, and has signaled its intent to appeal the verdict. “The Court's decision is a welcome reminder that we value independent journalism in Minnesota,” said Teresa Nelson, legal director of the ACLU-MN. “This win is particularly important as large corporations increasingly attempt to intimidate reporters through litigation and in the face of unprecedented attacks on the freedom of the press by the Trump administration and other government officials.” The court ruled today that the law does not contain an exception for journalists who are alleged to have engaged in illegal activity, but it did not categorically bar trial courts from ordering journalists to produce privilege logs in response to document requests – with notable caveats. The opinion is here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/energy-transfer-lp-v-greenpeace-international-unicorn-riot?document=Minnesota-Supreme-Court-Opinion

SAN ANTONIO – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, and several other legal advocacy groups filed an amicus brief today in CCIA v. Paxton, arguing that a Texas law that restricts social media content for minors violates the First Amendment. “If allowed to go into effect, this law will stifle young people’s creativity and cut them off from public discourse,” said Lauren Yu, legal fellow with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The government can’t protect minors by censoring the world around them, or by making it harder for them to discuss their problems with their peers. This law would unconstitutionally limit young people’s ability to express themselves online, develop critical thinking skills, and discover new perspectives, and it would make the entire internet less free for us all in the process.” The brief argues that House Bill 18 (“the SCOPE Act”) restricts young people’s ability to use social media and blocks them from viewing content they have a constitutional right to see. The law, which was enjoined by a court last year, would require minors to register their age with social media platforms and would require platforms to filter content based on an overly broad definition of “harmful to minors” that includes any content that “promote, glorifies, or facilitates” a long list of topics, including eating disorders, bullying, and self-harm. “The government should not be able to decide what’s best for every child,” said Chloe Kempf, staff attorney from the ACLU of Texas. “This law would isolate kids who need community support, hinder families who want their children to learn about the world around them, and open the door to sweeping bans — from Romeo and Juliet to content that is critical of the government. What’s framed as protecting our children is harming them — by censoring their access to the ideas and information they need to prepare for their futures.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that minors have robust First Amendment rights, including online. Even when the goal is to protect children, the brief argues, the government cannot infringe upon core expressive activity. The brief was filed in support of Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice. CCIA & NetChoice originally filed suit against H.B. 18 in 2024. The amicus brief was filed in the Western District of Texas and was signed by the Cato Institute, the Student Press Law Center, TechFreedom, Wikimedia, and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation. The brief can be viewed online here.

Following Mahmoud Khalil’s historic release on June 20, 2025, his legal team today filed a preliminary injunction motion challenging the government's attempts to detain and deport him based on a second immigration charge regarding alleged misrepresentations on his green card application as unconstitutional. The new motion argues that the government’s post-hoc charge, which it levied one week after Mr. Khalil filed his habeas petition, was retaliatory and violated Mr. Khalil’s First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process rights. This action follows a couple significant rulings in June. First, the Court held that the original charges the government brought against Mr. Khalil — the “foreign policy ground” — were likely unconstitutional and blocked his detention on that basis. The government then shifted its justification for detention to the post-hoc charges. The following week, Judge Michael E. Farbiarz ordered Mr. Khalil's release, emphasizing that detention on such charges is extremely rare and affirming that he posed no danger or threat to the public. (The government has appealed both rulings, and is seeking to pause the release order in the appellate court.) The court has not yet formally blocked the second misrepresentation charge, as the motion now asks the court to do. Mr. Khalil, who the Trump administration detained for his speech in support of Palestinian rights, suffered in a remote detention facility in Jena, Louisiana for over three months — more than 1,400 miles from his legal team, wife, and newborn son. Before the government issued these late-filed allegations against Mr. Khalil, their immigration case rested entirely on Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s foreign policy “determination,” which the federal court has now blocked. Below are quotes from Mr. Khalil’s legal team: “The Trump administration’s baseless, after-the-fact charges against Mahmoud Khalil are nothing more than further retaliation for his outspoken advocacy for Palestinian human rights,” said Amy Belsher, Director of Immigrants’ Rights Litigation at the NYCLU. “These flimsy accusations only reveal the targeted nature of his arrest and the ongoing attempts to silence and remove him. It’s past time the government gave up its unlawful attacks on Mahmoud and his family.” “The government has gone to extraordinary and outrageous lengths in its attempt to silence Mahmoud Khalil, including leveling unsubstantiated and retaliatory charges against him,” said Liza Weisberg, ACLU-NJ Senior Staff Attorney. “We will continue to defend Mr. Khalil’s freedom as he is targeted for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights, and we are confident he will ultimately prevail." "The government is using these trumped up charges to continue punishing Mahmoud Khalil for his political beliefs," said Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. "This is textbook retaliation. The First Amendment squarely prohibits the government from abusing its powers to suppress dissent." Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the ACLU of New Jersey, the ACLU of Louisiana, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).