Constitution Archives - The National Law Forum

Federal District Court in Florida Holds FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

In the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., three justices expressed concern that the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions violate Article II of the Constitution and called for a case presenting that question. Justice Clarence Thomas penned a dissent explaining that private relators wield significant executive authority yet are not appointed as “Officers of the United States” under Article II. Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, concurring in the main opinion, agreed with Justice Thomas that this constitutional issue should be considered in an appropriate case.

Earlier this year, several defendants in a non-intervened qui tam lawsuit in the Middle District of Florida took up the challenge. The qui tam, styled United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC et al., involves allegations of Medicare Advantage coding fraud. After several years of litigation, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the relator’s qui tam action was unconstitutional, citing Justice Thomas’s dissent in Polansky.

The defendants’ motion prompted a statement of interest from the United States and participation as amici by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Anti-Fraud Coalition. The Court also asked for supplemental briefs on Founding-era historical evidence regarding federal qui tam enforcement.

On September 30, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle granted the defendants’ motion, agreeing the relator was unconstitutionally appointed and dismissing her complaint. Judge Mizelle, who clerked for Justice Thomas, held a private FCA relator exercises significant authority that is constitutionally reserved to the executive branch, including the right to bring an enforcement action on behalf of the United States and recover money for the U.S. Treasury. In doing so, a relator chooses which claims to prosecute, which theories to raise, which defendants to sue, and which arguments to make on appeal, resulting in precedent that binds the United States. Yet, a relator is not appointed by the president, a department head, or a court of law under Article II, making the qui tam device unconstitutional.

Judge Mizelle distinguished historical qui tam statutes, which were largely abandoned early in our nation’s history, on the ground that few gave a relator the level of authority the FCA does. And while the FCA itself dates back to the Civil War, the statute largely remained dormant (aside from a flurry of use in the 1930s and 40s) until the 1986 amendments set off a new wave of qui tam litigation.

The ruling is significant for the future of the FCA. As Judge Mizelle’s opinion explains, most FCA actions are brought by relators as opposed to the government itself. If the decision is upheld on appeal, a number of outcomes are possible. If the FCA is to continue as a significant source of revenue generation for the government, the DOJ must devote more resources to bringing FCA actions directly. Congress may also consider amending the FCA’s qui tam provisions to limit relators’ authority to conduct FCA litigation, thereby maintaining the statute as a viable avenue for whistleblowing.

One thing is almost certain, however. FCA defendants across the country will likely raise similar arguments in light of Judge Mizelle’s ruling. Whether in Zafirov or another case, it appears the Supreme Court will get to decide the constitutionality of the FCA’s qui tam provisions sooner rather than later.

Is It the End of the False Claims Act As We Know It? District Court Rules Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

In a first-of-its-kind ruling on 30 September 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida held in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Med. Assocs., LLC that the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA) are unconstitutional. No. 19-cv-01236, 2024 WL 4349242, at *18 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024). Specifically, Judge Mizelle found that qui tam relators in FCA actions qualify as executive branch “Officers” who are not properly appointed, thereby violating the Appointments Clause of Article II of the US Constitution.

The holding adopts Appointments Clause arguments that have been gaining traction in recent Supreme Court opinions. It also addresses some of the “serious constitutional questions” that Justice Clarence Thomas had raised regarding the FCA’s qui tam provisions in his dissent in the Supreme Court’s June 2023 decision in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., Inc., 599 U.S. 419, 449 (2024) (Thomas, J., dissenting). Notably, Judge Mizelle’s decision in Zafirov is contrary to a number of other decisions post-Polansky that rejected similar constitutional arguments.

The decision is sure to be appealed to the Eleventh Circuit and it remains to be seen whether Judge Mizelle’s rationale will withstand appellate scrutiny. In any event, for the time being, the defense bar has a new tool in its arsenal to seek dismissal of qui tam FCA actions. Moreover, if the decision stands, it will have broad ramifications on the FCA, which has provided for qui tam actions (a form of “whistleblower” activity) since the FCA’s enactment in 1863. Cases filed by qui tam relators have comprised the largest portion of overall FCA recoveries for years, accounting for 87% of FCA recoveries in the most recent fiscal year. For additional data on qui tam cases, see our firms’ recent white paper here.

Summary of the Decision

In 2019, the relator, a board-certified family care physician, filed a qui tam FCA action against her employer and several other providers, as well as Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs). The relator alleged that the providers acted in concert with the MAOs to artificially increase the risk adjustment scores of Medicare Advantage enrollees, in turn increasing the defendants’ capitated payments from the government.

After a lengthy procedural history involving multiple rounds of motions to dismiss, in February 2024, the defendants sought judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the FCA’s qui tam provisions violate the Appointments, Vesting, and Take Care Clauses of Article II of the US Constitution. The defendants also argued that historical practice does not cure the qui tam provisions’ constitutional defects. The United States intervened solely to defend the constitutionality of the FCA’s qui tam provisions, with several amici curiae also filing briefs.

The court did not reach the Vesting and Take Care Clause arguments but agreed with defendants that the qui tam provisions violate the Appointments Clause. Analyzing that question, the court first found that qui tam relators are “Officers of the United States” because: (1) relators exercise significant authority by possessing civil enforcement authority on behalf of the United States; and (2) relators occupy a “continuing position” established by law given that the FCA prescribes their statutory duties, powers, and compensation and the position is analogous to other temporary officials that wield core executive power, such as bank receivers and special prosecutors. Second, the court found that Article II of the US Constitution contains no qui tam exception, rejecting arguments that historical practice confirms the qui tam provisions’ constitutionality. The court stated that “[w]hen the Constitution is clear, no amount of countervailing history overcomes what the States ratified.” Third, the court found that because a relator is an Officer, the relator must be appointed by the president, the head of an executive department, or a court. Because relators are self-appointed by initiating their own FCA actions, the court held that the qui tam provisions violate the Appointments Clause and dismissed the action.

Key Takeaways

Although noteworthy, Zafirov is an outlier among the multiple decisions pre- and post-Polansky that have addressed the qui tam provisions’ constitutionality. The case is also expected to be appealed by both the relator and the United States to the Eleventh Circuit. Of note, the Eleventh Circuit is currently considering an appeal of a separate Appointments Clause ruling that found a special counsel was improperly appointed in United States v. Trump.
This issue could also make its way to the Supreme Court. In addition to Justice Thomas’ comments noted above, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett (in a concurrence in Polansky) acknowledged that “[t]here are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II” and suggested that the Court consider those arguments in an “appropriate case.” Time will tell whether Zafirov is that case.
The anti-whistleblower holding in Zafirov stands in sharp contrast to other recent notable developments that encourage whistleblower activity, including the US Department of Justice’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program and similar initiatives, as well as recent US Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement actions.
Despite the expected appeals, the success in Zafirov raises important issues for FCA defendants and the defense bar to evaluate, and the decision may open the door to similar arguments in other FCA qui tam actions. For one, it remains to be seen what impact Zafirov should have where a defendant is considering settling in a nonintervened case and whether a conditional settlement that preserves the right to appeal the constitutional issue is appropriate. Other courts may also draw different lines, including if and how the government’s decision to intervene impacts the constitutional analysis. These will all be important issues for affected companies and FCA practitioners to consider and keep an eye on.

Our Firm’s FCA lawyers will continue to closely monitor these developments.

Unlocking the Benefits of U.S. Citizenship

Each year, on Sept. 17, Americans celebrate Constitution and Citizenship Day. While there are many paths to citizenship – born in the U.S. or a U.S. territory, born abroad to U.S. citizens or naturalized – we all enjoy the same advantages, and equally important responsibilities. As we reflect on these responsibilities of citizenship and what it means to be a U.S. citizen, we also explore the numerous benefits and incredible opportunities that U.S. citizenship has to offer.

Benefits of U.S. citizenship

Visa-free travel

There are so many advantages when it comes to travel and the ease of travel when you’re a U.S. citizen. For example, you don’t need to prove potentially every time that you intend to make the United States your home. Permanent residents are required to show roots and ties to the U.S., and that they want to be a permanent resident and make the United States their permanent home. In addition, for lawful permanent residents, additional travel documents may be needed if you have long trips outside the U.S. By being a U.S. citizen, those requirements are no longer necessary.

Traveling with a U.S. passport allows for assistance from the government when abroad, as well as possession of one of the most travel-friendly statuses available today. U.S. passport holders can travel to certain countries without a visa. Being a U.S. citizen and having a U.S. passport opens many doors and removes a lot of visa requirements and other challenges when traveling to other countries.

The right to vote

The Constitution and laws of the United States grant numerous rights exclusively to citizens, with one of the most fundamental being the right to participate in federal elections. This right is particularly significant when compared to many countries where citizens lack a voice in their government and cannot effectively communicate their values and what’s important to them by voting. In contrast, U.S. citizens have the power to influence the nation’s future by voting for representatives and leaders who align with their values and priorities.

Keep the family together

U.S. citizenship provides a strong safeguard against family separation with the privilege of helping immediate relatives, such as a spouse, parents and unmarried children, to obtain permanent residency.

Federal employment opportunities

Most jobs within government agencies require U.S. citizenship, so becoming eligible for federal job opportunities can be a significant public service professional opportunity, including running for office to become an elected official.

Access to federal benefits

U.S. citizens are eligible for certain federal scholarships and grants and access to federal public benefits for basic needs, including Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid. Citizens are also eligible for government-sponsored legal aid, which provides free or low-cost legal assistance to ensure all citizens have access to justice regardless of their financial situation.

Dictionaries and the Law – Hunting, Poaching, and the Right to Food

The Law Court’s recent decision in Parker v. Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife is fascinating—it is a rare instance when the Court has been called upon to interpret and apply a new constitutional provision. The Maine Constitution has had relatively few amendments, but in 2021 Maine voters approved a “Right to Food Amendment.” Parker involved a challenge to Maine’s Sunday hunting law prohibition under the new amendment.

As is relevant here, the amendment provides that “[a]ll individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to food, including the right to … grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing” for certain purposes, including nourishment. It then enumerates limitations on this right, conditioning the right on the requirement that the individual not commit “trespassing, theft, poaching or other abuses of private property rights, public lands or natural resources.”

The question in the case was whether the Maine law banning hunting on Sundays infringes on this right. In an interesting ruling, the Law Court said it did not. After reaching the straightforward conclusion that the plaintiffs could present a justiciable claim given the State’s denial of their request for a Sunday hunting permit, the Court took up the merits—and in so doing, raised some intriguing questions.

First, the Court accorded the Sunday hunting statute a presumption of constitutionality—even though the statute predated the constitutional amendment. But why? Normally the presumption accords the Legislature credit for seeking to act in accordance with existing constitutional limits. That rationale, the Court acknowledged, did not apply. The Court instead suggested that there are other reasons for according this presumption, but relied on cases stating that facial constitutional challenges are disfavored because they lack robust factual records and pose the risk of overbroad rulings. Those concerns seem to go to the particular vehicle for the challenge, not the presumed validity of the enactment itself. Isn’t the right answer, then, to apply the appropriate standard for facial challenges rather than apply a presumption? That point is at least debatable.

Second, the Court’s analysis of the amendment’s language raises interesting interpretive questions. The Court concluded that the term “harvest” includes hunting. The Court buttressed this conclusion by citing several authorities, including dictionary definitions, its own prior precedent, and statutory definitions. Based on these authorities, the Court reasoned, the amendment does include a right to hunt. The Court then observed that this right is subject to express limitations, including that the right does not include engaging in “poaching.” Citing dictionary definitions only, the Court then reasoned that the term “poaching” includes any illegal hunting. Thus, the Court held that the right to hunt does not include the right to hunt on Sundays, because the Legislature has made hunting on Sundays illegal.

One could imagine a potential criticism—does the reasoning in Parker render the right to hunt under the amendment meaningless? If the amendment is meant to protect the right to hunt, but does not circumscribe any law that renders hunting illegal, does the amendment protect hunting at all?

There are arguable critiques of the Court’s reliance on dictionary definitions. Two definitions cited, from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and Webster’s II New College Dictionary, suggest a broad definition of the term that includes any illegal taking of game. But query whether that is the ordinary understanding of the term. Various dictionaries, including Merriam Webster and Cambridge, suggest a primary meaning of “poaching” that relates to illegality in the manner in which the game is taken—i.e., taking game while encroaching on the land of another. Indeed, the Court’s citation to Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines poaching as the illegal taking of game “on another’s land,” supports this ordinary reading. At the very least, the availability of a narrower common meaning suggests the need for careful reliance on dictionaries, including analysis of primary definitions and the word’s context.

As Justice Scalia and Brian Garner note in Reading Law, the availability of multiple meanings for common words places great importance on evaluating not just to dictionary definitions but also the word’s context to determine its most likely meaning. Here, there are multiple hints at the word’s meaning to be found in the amendment’s context. The amendment itself references poaching and “other abuses of private property rights, public lands or natural resources.” The reference to “other abuses of private property” renders a definition of “poaching” that requires some sort of trespass more likely. And broader context might suggest the same; as mentioned above, a reading of “poaching” that includes any law rendering hunting illegal seems (at first blush) to render the amendment circular, and thus meaningless at least in part—a result that is generally discouraged. Of course, there may be rejoinders, but Parker does not provide them.

As Parker illustrates, constitutional and statutory interpretation requires careful, contextual analysis, and it is incumbent on attorneys to equip the Court with thorough arguments. That’s what a good appellate brief—whether by a party or by an interested party filing an amicus—is for. But for now, Parker answers a narrow question under the Right to Food amendment, while leaving many other questions about its scope and application open.

For more news on State Constitution Interpretation, visit the NLR Constitutional Law section.

New York Times v. Sullivan Supreme Court Decision and its Impact on Libel Law: the Case, the Context and the Consequences

Aimee Edmondson, Ph.D. and Associate Professor and Director for Graduate Studies at Ohio University, has recently published a new book, In Sullivan’s Shadow on the landmark libel US Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan. In the current contentious climate where even the weather has become a political topic, and with President Trump courting a combative relationship with the news media, this case from the Civil Rights Era (1964) has a new resonance. It seems appropriate to re-examine the case, the historical context surrounding it, and why it still matters today.

The following are the facts of this case. In the early ’60s, the New York Times (NYT) published a full-page advertisement by the supporters of Martin Luther King, Jr, criticizing the Montgomery Alabama police, and specifically L.B. Sullivan, the Montgomery Police commissioner, for the department’s mistreatment of Civil Rights protesters. Sullivan sued the paper for defamation, and the trial court ruled in his favor. The NYT appealed to the Supreme Court in Alabama, which affirmed, and then the NYT appealed to the U.S Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and returned a unanimous decision 9-0, that the underlying decisions violated the First Amendment. This 1964 Supreme Court landmark decision is foundational in support of the First Amendment’s right of freedom of the press and ultimately demonstrates that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment restrict the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. This decision also created the “actual malice” standard, which required that the publication of false or erroneous information had to be done with actual intent to harm the public figure.

Libel litigation has really kicked up in recent years. While the “actual malice” standard is still firmly in place, a few high-profile libel actions have pressed forward. A few examples are the following: Sarah Palin suing the NYT; the Covington Catholic students, specifically Nicholas Sandmann and his ultimately dismissed lawsuit against the Washington Post (WP); and former Sheriff Joseph Arpaio’s lawsuit against the NYT and editorial writer Michelle Cottle which was also dismissed. Additionally, Trump frequently uses his Twitter feed to proclaim that libel suits “are out of reach” but continues to threaten libel action when unflattering press is published. To be clear, his threats have remained threats; to this date, he has not filed lawsuits regarding libel.

With this history and cultural context in mind, I am very grateful that Professor Edmondson took the time to speak with me regarding the state of libel litigation in the United States.

The NLR: The Sullivan case dates back to the ’60s and came out of the Civil Rights Movement when the NYT was sued by the Montgomery, Alabama police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan. Why is this precedent especially relevant now?

Sullivan is relevant for at least these three reasons.

First, journalism faces tough challenges. Local print journalism is withering. The president of the United States has launched an assault on news media. And manipulators, some of them foreign, are abusing technology with fakery and confusion. As the free press struggles, our Republic is well served by existing protection again libel abuse.

Second, we as a nation go to great lengths to protect free speech, even unpopular and hateful expression. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the government could not deny vulgar trademarks citing the First Amendment (Iancu v. Brunetti, decided June 24, 2019). Citizens who chant “send her back” at a Trump rally are protected. Journalists who cover controversy likewise should be protected from libel abuse.

When the nation’s Founders gathered to amend the Constitution through the Bill of Rights, they positioned freedom of speech and the free press side-by-side, as complementary. As we protect free speech, we also should protect the free press.

Third, the abuse of libel is an instinctive default position of authority facing criticism. When authority is irritated by the message, it can seek ways to injure or chill the messenger. America should guard against abuse of libel. Justice William Brennan wrote in the 1964 landmark Sullivan case that, left unchecked, abuse of libel can “threaten the very existence of an American press virile enough to publish unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of public officials.”

In this era of divided citizenry, profound technological changes, and nervousness about the future, Sullivan is perhaps more relevant because it checks the misuse of libel.

The NLR: Based on your research of libel prior to Sullivan, what can you tell us about the use and abuse of libel before Sullivan?

In the Jim Crow South, libel was weaponized against the press and individuals who challenged the racial status quo. The Sullivan case was the culmination of an onslaught of libel claims designed to brake progress, silence criticism, and bankrupt agents of change as the civil rights movement was gaining momentum.

The intersection of libel, race, and journalism can be tracked to the early years of our nation. In 1830, abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was indicted in Baltimore for publishing a newspaper report of 75 enslaved people shipped from Baltimore to New Orleans. He was locked up for 49 days in part for criticizing the institution of slavery. Garrison’s lawyer, Charles Mitchell of Baltimore, described libel abuse as an “engine of tyranny.”

My book primarily focuses on civil rights-era libel litigation, mainly, but not exclusively, in the South. Chapter One is set in Los Angeles. The local Klan sued the African American editor-publisher of the California Eagle in 1925 after the newspaper published a Klan strategy memo on how to manipulate black voters in Watts. The judge ruled in favor of the paper, concluding that the Klan document, which had been handed over to police and then to journalists, was privileged. (In court, the Klan said the paper was fake.)

The win-loss record of libel cases was mixed before Sullivan was taken up by the nation’s high court. Defendants settled some cases to avoid expense and exposure. Some judges ruled that truth was a defense against libel claims.

Regardless of the legal outcomes, the pile-on of libel lawsuits against the press and civil rights leaders was draining financially. For example, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth was a named defendant in the Sullivan case, even though he didn’t know that his name appeared in the full-page ad in NYT that prompted Sullivan’s lawsuit. Alabama courts awarded Commissioner Sullivan $500,000, a record-high judgment at the time. While the case was on appeal, authorities seized Reverend Shuttlesworth’s Plymouth, which brought $400 at auction to help pay the judgment. Land owned by three other ministers who also were defendants was sold at auction for $4,350.

By the time the U.S. Supreme Court heard the Sullivan case, there was plenty of evidence in multiple jurisdictions showing that libel abuse was weighing on the First Amendment.

The NLR: After the Sullivan ruling in 1964, the press went on to break some fairly fantastic stories. I am thinking about Watergate, in the early ’70s, specifically. What were the implications of Sullivan regarding press coverage of civil rights, Vietnam, Watergate, and other contentious news?

Yes. My colleague Christopher B. Daly at Boston University (author of “Covering America”) makes the profound point that Americans need a free and robust press in wartime and peacetime. He cites coverage of the Pentagon Papers, the My Lai Massacre, and the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

I close my book by pointing out that Sullivan freed the press to ramp up its watchdog reporting on a wide range of issues. The press’ scrutiny must continue as a cornerstone of our democratic tradition.

Balancing police authority/public safety with respect for individual freedoms and free expression was at the core of much of the libel litigation before and after Sullivan. The Sullivan case at its heart was about criticism of police brutality against civil rights protesters in Montgomery, Alabama, which was a cradle of the Confederacy during the Civil War. As a result of Sullivan, today’s public criticism of law enforcement, such as press coverage of “Hands up, don’t shoot,” and “I can’t breathe” are not actionable libel claims.

The NLR: Earlier this year, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the Supreme Court should take a look at Sullivan, after 55 years, to modify the standard on actual malice. The rest of the Court did not voice similar sentiments. What point is Justice Thomas making/what is on his mind, and do you think the Court will revisit libel anytime soon?

Justice Thomas often treads his own path in the area of First Amendment law. He is a noted defender of advertising (commercial speech), questioning why it should be more heavily regulated than other types of speech, even political speech. He has questioned laws that regulate political contributions, and strongly supported less government regulation of street and lawn signs. However, he has opposed free speech protections for high school students and prisoners.

I see Sullivan as a civil rights case as well as a libel case. How ironic that Justice Thomas, the only African-American on the Supreme Court, is calling for a retreat on civil rights-era protections in Sullivan. He made this remark in a concurring opinion released early this year when the court turned down an appeal from Kathrine McKee, who accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault. She sued Cosby for libel after his lawyers called her dishonest (McKee v. Cosby). As Justice Thomas says:

New York Times and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law. Instead of simply applying the First Amendment as it was understood by the people who ratified it, the Court fashioned its own “‘federal rule[s]’” by balancing the “competing values at stake in defamation suits.” (quoting Gertz v. Welch and Sullivan). We should not continue to reflexively apply this policy-driven approach to the Constitution. Instead, we should carefully examine the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we.

As you noted in your question, Thomas’ colleagues on the Supreme Court have not publicly joined his push to roll back Sullivan. I do not expect that Court will revisit Sullivan immediately. But predicting what the Court will do is virtually impossible. Sometimes, the seeds planted by a single justice, like Thomas’ remarks about Sullivan, yield results later.

Generally, critics say Sullivan stacks the deck against the plaintiff, that actual malice is an impossible standard, and the press should not have license to run amuck.

The NLR: Sullivan set the standard pretty high for public officials seeking to win libel claims, they have to show “actual malice.” Does this, and other existing protections of the press, make it virtually impossible to win a libel claim?

Journalists are not totally protected from libel suits, nor should they be. Truth is the ultimate defense in a libel suit. If reporters get it wrong, certainly there can be ramifications.

If reporters get it wrong and the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, the reporters may lose a libel case if actual malice is proven in court. Actual malice is publishing content that is knowingly wrong, or journalists should have known it was incorrect.

After a 15-day trial, a jury in New York awarded $75,000 in damages to Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for president in 1964 (Goldwater v. Ginzburg). A federal appeals court affirmed the outcome in 1969, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case. Ralph Ginzburg, publisher of Fact magazine, ran an article that said Goldwater was paranoid, unfit for office, and troubled by “intense anxiety about his manhood.” This unflattering claim was based on a survey mailed to psychiatrists. Some of the respondents had warned that psychological evaluations must take place in clinical settings, but Ginzburg published anyway. He cited the Sullivan case when Goldwater took him to court, to no avail.

Rolling Stone settled multiple libel claims after retracting its 2014 story of gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity. The flawed 9,000-word article portrayed an associate dean as “chief villain” of the incident. She won a $3 million verdict in court and then settled. Rolling Stone settled with the fraternity for $1.65 million, and also settled with members of the fraternity.

In June, a jury in Ohio awarded $44.4 million in punitive and compensatory damages to family-owned Gibson’s Bakery to be paid by Oberlin College (Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College). Bakery owners said the college defamed and harmed their business after a shoplifting incident. “Even a college as influential as Oberlin,” noted conservative blogger Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson, “may be held accountable for its actions in a court of law.”

The NLR: What has candidate Donald Trump/President Trump said about libel?

In 2016 in Fort Worth, Texas, then-candidate Trump took aim at libel laws directly: “One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times and Washington Post . . . writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they are totally protected.”

President Trump lamented in 2018 that “totally false” reports are out of reach of libel law:

Trump has threatened libel action against both the media and individuals. For example, candidate Trump threatened to sue NYT in 2016 after NYT’S publication containing claims by women of his alleged inappropriate touching. In response, a NYT attorney said if Trump thinks “the law of this land forces us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.”

Trump did not sue.

Threatening libel action is part of Trump’s broader effort, aimed at his voter base and the electorate, to de-legitimize the press.

The NLR: Defamation-libel litigation is very active lately. What are today’s courts saying about libel?

Legal outcomes vary because circumstances vary. There is significant activity on libel, in state and federal courts, showcasing the durability of the legal standard set more than a half-century ago in Sullivan.

The Sullivan standard resonates throughout the 11-page opinion dismissing former Sheriff Joseph Arpaio’s lawsuit against NYT and editorial writer Michelle Cottle. “Because plaintiff has failed to plead actual malice, his false light claim must fail as well,” wrote US District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta (District of Columbia) in a decision issued August 9, 2019. Arpaio was longtime sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, before running for Congress in 2018. After Arpaio lost in the primary, NYT published an opinion piece by Cottle criticizing the sheriff’s treatment of immigrants (“he was so much more than a run-of-the-mill immigrant basher”). Arpaio, a public figure, claimed the column harmed his reputation and his chances to run for the U.S. Senate in 2020. The judge said Arpaio’s complaint “comes nowhere close to pleading sufficient facts that plausible establish ‘actual malice.’” (Arpaio v Cottle, August 9, 2019). This case is remarkably similar to the multiple libel suits filed by legendary southern lawman Lawrence Rainey, a former Neshoba County, Mississippi sheriff who sued multiple journalists and even Orion Pictures for his depiction in the film, Mississippi Burning, in 1989.

Current libel claims highlight the inflation in the amount of damages sought by plaintiffs. In the early 1960s, Sullivan (as well as then Alabama Governor John Patterson) sued NYT for $500,000. In 1982, General William Westmoreland sued CBS for $120 million regarding a Vietnam documentary (Westmoreland settled during the trial, ending the case without payment, retraction, or apology from CBS).

This year, a high school student from Kentucky sued WP for $250 million, the purchase price of the newspaper when Amazon founder Jeff Bezos bought it in 2013. On July 26, U.S. District Court Judge William O. Bertelsman (Eastern District of Kentucky) dismissed the case (Nicholas Sandmann v. The Washington Post). Publication of opinion is not actionable libel, the judge concluded. This case involved coverage of Sandmann’s encounter with Native American activist Nathan Phillips on the National Mall on January 19, 2019.

“The Court accepts Sandmann’s statement that, when he was standing motionless in the confrontation with Phillips, his intent was to calm the situation and to not impede or block anyone”, the judge said. “However, Phillips did not see it that way. He concluded that he was being ‘blocked’ and not allowed to ‘retreat.’ He passed these conclusions on to The Post. They may have been erroneous, but . . . they are opinion protected by the First Amendment. The Post is not liable for publishing these opinions.”

Days after the Sandmann case was dismissed in federal court, eight of Sandmann’s classmates (“John Does 1 through 8”) from Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills, Kentucky, filed a defamation suit in state court against 12 individuals. Defendants include two members of Congress, comic Kathy Griffin, and a batch of commentators and journalists.

Also, in August, a federal appeals court reinstated Sarah Palin’s defamation suit against NYT. Therefore, a court will consider whether a NYT editorial on gun violence exhibited “actual malice” against Palin, a former vice presidential candidate.

The NLR: You’ve raised some excellent points. How does all of this fit together? What are we to make of this landscape in today’s contentious and media-saturated environment?

Truth-seeking is a primary mission of journalism. News reporting inspires debate. Reporting controversy does not constitute libel. Publication of malicious, reckless, falsehood is actionable libel.

Newsgathering is an ongoing process, as events evolve. Courts appear to understand this dynamic, with the media’s constant deadlines, and do not view updating as a story evolves as actual malice. It’s quite the opposite. We write what we know to be the truth as we know it.

It’s important to note that Justice Brennan’s majority opinion in Sullivan protected even false information, as long as that information was published by accident (without actual malice). Later libel cases built on Sullivan with the U.S. Supreme Court declaring that “pure opinion” is also constitutionally protected speech (Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Company). The First Amendment, then, ensures that free speech isn’t “chilled” and thus clears the way for journalists to write about fast-moving and-or controversial issues without fear of costly libel litigation.

As we ponder the big picture, let’s remember Justice Louis Brandeis’ time-honored advice: “the answer to bad speech is more speech, not ‘enforced silence.’”

The NLR: Many thanks to Dr. Edmondson for her insights and useful examples on this important and timely matter.

ARTICLE BY Eilene Spear of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC.

For more freedom of speech issues, see the Constitutional Law page on the National Law Review.

Sixth Circuit Erases Chalking of Parked Cars

It’s not often that a dispute over parking tickets ends up in federal court. But that’s exactly what happened this week in Taylor v. City of Saginaw – a case that has already drawn the attention of the national media.

Taylor involved a challenge to “a common parking enforcement practice known as ‘chalking,’ whereby City parking enforcement officers use chalk to mark the tires of parked vehicles to track how long they have been parked.” This practice can be surprisingly effective (as certain blog authors unfortunately can attest). But it is apparently very effective in Saginaw – according to Judge Donald’s decision, one particular parking enforcement officer managed to chalk (and then ticket) Ms. Taylor fifteen separate times between 2014 and 2017.

Armed with a slew of parking tickets, Ms. Taylor filed suit in federal court, alleging that the City violated the Fourth Amendment by chalking her tires without her consent or a valid warrant. The Sixth Circuit agreed, relying upon the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), to hold that chalking constitutes an unreasonable trespass upon a constitutionally-protected area (your car).

At first blush, chalking a car’s tires may not seem like the type of “search” typically raising Fourth Amendment concerns. But as Judge Donald explained, Jones signaled a rebirth of “the seldom used ‘property-based’ approach to the Fourth Amendment search inquiry,” which focuses on physical intrusion to one’s property:

Under Jones, when governmental intrusions are accompanied by physical intrusions, a search occurs when the government: (1) trespasses upon a constitutionally protected area, (2) to obtain information.

In the Court’s view, chalking satisfied both of these requirements: the officer came into contact with Ms. Taylor’s car, in an attempt to obtain information about her (whether she remained in her parking spot too long).

The Court proceeded to hold that the search was unreasonable because the car was parked legally when chalked, and the officer lacked any reasonable suspicion (let alone probable cause) that a crime had been committed. The Court also specifically rejected the City’s assertion of the “community caretaker” exception, explaining that “the purpose of chalking is to raise revenue, and not to mitigate [a] public hazard.”

Taylor is the latest in a series of interesting Fourth Amendment cases playing out on our public roadways. The Sixth Circuit’s decision relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones, which addressed the constitutionality of electronically monitoring an individual’s location by affixing a GPS device to his car.

And the Supreme Court heard argument yesterday in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which asks whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist suspected of driving under the influence provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

This post was written by Scott W. Coyle and Lauren S. Kuley of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

Read more news from the Sixth Circuit from the National Law Review on our Litigation Page.

Dane County Judge: Wisconsin’s “Right to Work” law unconstitutional

wisconsin supreme court In a decision issued April 8, 2016, Dane County Circuit Court Judge William Foust ruled that Wisconsin’s “Right to Work” law violates the Wisconsin Constitution because it takes union property without just compensation (i.e., it is an unlawful taking).

According to the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), which played a leading role in seeking and attaining passage of the law, Judge Foust’s decision “is an act of blatant judicial activism that will not withstand appellate review.” Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel also issued a statement expressing disappointment in the ruling and stating that he is “confident the law will be upheld on appeal.”

Judge Foust ruled that the law unconstitutionally takes union property by forcing a union to represent workers who are not members of the union and do not pay dues to the union. Judge Foust found the State’s argument that “neither federal law nor state law requires a union or other entity to become an exclusive bargaining representative” to be “disingenuous.” According to Judge Foust, the unions have no choice in representing all employees because, by law, their existence depends upon being the exclusive bargaining agent for any particular bargaining unit.

A copy of Judge Foust’s order is available here.

Oregon’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

Oregon’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, newly appointed U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane has held in a case filed on behalf of four couples in Multnomah County. Geiger v. Kitzhaber, No. 6:13-cv-01834-MC (May 19, 2014).

Judge McShane explained the measure discriminates against same-sex couples. “The state’s marriage laws unjustifiably treat same-gender couples differently than opposite-gender couples. The laws assess a couple’s fitness for civil marriage based on their sexual orientation: opposite-gender couples pass; same-gender couples do not. No legitimate state purpose justifies the preclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage.”

A state Constitutional amendment, enacted pursuant to a 2004 ballot initiative organized and sponsored by the Defense of Marriage Coalition, had prohibited same-sex marriage, stating that only “marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” This initiative and the subsequent Constitutional amendment were in response to the Multnomah County commissioner’s decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. During the Geiger litigation, Oregon’s Attorney General stated she found it impossible to legally defend the ban because “per- forming same-sex marriages in Oregon would have no adverse effect on existing marriages, and that sexual orientation does not determine an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and enduring relation- ship.” With Geiger, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor invalidating the federal Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriage is valid under Oregon state and federal law.

Further, although Oregon enacted a domestic partnership law in 2008, the Family Fairness Act, granting domestic partners similar rights and privileges to those enjoyed by married spouses, the Legislature acknowledged domestic partnerships did not reach the magnitude of rights inherent in the definition of marriage. For example, same-sex couples in Oregon were not entitled to the rights or benefits under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act because Department of Labor guidance recognizes same-sex marriage only if valid under the employee’s state of residence. The DOL, however, has proposed a rule expanding the term “spouse” and, if implemented, will recognize same-sex marriages when recognized in the couple’s state of residence or if performed in a state recognizing same-sex marriage. According to the Secretary of Labor, “The basic promise of the FMLA is that no one should have to choose between succeeding at work and being a loving family caregiver. Under the proposed revisions, the FMLA will be applied to all families equally, enabling individuals in same-sex marriages to fully exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities to their families.” No changes have been proposed, however, for purposes of the Employment Retirement Income and Security Act (“ERISA”), the federal law governing employee benefit plans. The DOL counsels employers that, for purposes of ERISA, same-sex marriage should be recognized if valid in the state it is performed.

While Geiger will simplify the legal landscape, employers should review policies, procedures, and benefit plans closely to ensure that same-sex spouses are treated equally in all respects. In addition, Oregon law further prevents employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and family status. Requiring same-sex couples to “prove their status” or take other similar measures that are not required of opposite-sex couples may increase the risk of potential litigation under these laws.

Mei Fung So contributed to this article.

ARTICLE BY

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules That Police Officers Cannot Search the Contents of Cell Phones Incident to Arrest Without Obtaining a Search Warrant View Edit Track

In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from searching through the data on an arrested suspect’s cell phone as an “incident to the arrest” and instead ruled that police officers must get a warrant first.

Riley involved the facts of two separate cases. In the first case, officers searched through the smartphone of a suspect arrested for expired registration and possession of illegal firearms and found photos and text messages showing that the arrestee was involved in a gang shooting a few weeks earlier. In the second case, officers arrested a suspect after observing him complete a drug deal, searched his traditional cell phone (not a smart phone) for the phone number associated with his home, traced the number to his house, and found a large amount of drugs and cash, along with a firearm and ammunition. In both cases, the evidence obtained through the warrantless cell phone searches was admitted at trial and both defendants were convicted.

The Court’s analysis focused on the reach of a warrantless search “incident to a lawful arrest.” Under this exception, police officers are permitted to search the person arrested and the area within their immediate control to remove any weapons that may be used to resist arrest or endanger the officers and to prevent the destruction of evidence. SeeChimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The Court took the time to appreciate the complexity of modern cellphones, describing them as “minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone” that are “a pervasive and insistent part of daily life.” The Court then analyzed the two justifications in Chimel for allowing a search incident to arrest: officer safety and destruction of evidence. With respect to officer safety, the Court concluded that data cannot harm officers and examples of cellphones indirectly contributing to unsafe arrest scenes were insufficient to dispose of the warrant requirement. With respect to the destruction of evidence, the Court found that examples of remote data-wiping of cellphones in police custody were rare and could be prevented by removing the battery or storing the phone in a bag designed to block wireless signals.

As further justification, the Court examined the privacy issues that arise from allowing warrantless searches of cellphones incident to arrest. Because modern cellphones carry the equivalent of “cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers” in a person’s pocket, the Court found that searches incident to arrest were not “limited by physical realities” of what a person can carry. Thus, allowing warrantless searches incident to arrest could reveal “far more than the most exhaustive search of a house.” The Court also noted that the scope of data that can be reached by cellphones, such as information uploaded to cloud servers, necessitated a warrant requirement and the proposed solutions to allow but limit warrantless searches were unworkable. Finding that cellphones store “the privacies of life,” the Court held that police must do one simple thing before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest: “get a warrant.”

For a full copy of the opinion, click here.

Article By:

Kevin Heaphy

Of:

Ryley Carlock & Applewhite, A Professional Corporation

Tag: Constitution

Federal District Court in Florida Holds FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

Like this: