Constitutional Scholars Defend David Daleiden’s Rights

From the Thomas Moore Society:

Constitutional Scholars May Not Agree with What Daleiden Says, But They Defend His Right to Say It

Thomas More Society Welcomes Broad Coalition Defending Undercover Journalist’s First Amendment Rights

To date, eight amici curiae (“frienconstds of the court”) briefs have been filed in connection with the appeal of an injunction entered against undercover citizen journalist David Daleiden prohibiting him from releasing videotapes that he filmed at two abortion industry conferences. Thomas More Society attorneys representing Daleiden are grateful for this broad support for Daleiden’s constitutional rights on the part of so many amici. The appeal arises out of a lawsuit in which Daleiden has been sued by the National Abortion Federation (“NAF”) for alleged violations of the federal racketeering (“RICO”) law because of his internet postings of videotapes and research exposing Planned Parenthood’s and other abortionists’ involvement in trafficking body parts of aborted babies as well as other violations of federal law.  This includes evidence that partial birth abortions are still being used to harvest “intact fetal cadavers,” which command premium market prices. The amici filings come from diverse groups, including those who do not share Daleiden’s pro­life views, an alliance of state attorney generals, a coalition of U.S. Congressmen, and others.

Thomas More Society attorneys Thomas Brejcha, Peter Breen, Matt Heffron, and Corrina Konczal represent Daleiden, together with California based co­counsel, in the appeal filed with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The appeal prays for reversal of a preliminary injunction entered by District Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which bars Daleiden, his company, Center for Medical Progress, and his confederates from publishing or disclosing undercover videos taken at NAF annual conventions in 2014 and 2015. Daleiden argues, among other things, that the lower court decree constitutes an unconstitutional “prior restraint” on free speech that wrongfully deprives American citizens of access to otherwise hidden facts at the pinnacle of newsworthiness and of surpassing public interest.

The “friend of the court” briefs filed in the appeal include the following:

Read the rest of the article here.

Find additional background on the case at the following links:


You may also like...