Mediaboss Marketing

Alex Thurston considered the future of northeastern Nigeria after the death of Boko Harams leader.

Jen Patja Howell shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast featuring discussion of the newest developments in Trump investigationswith Lawfare co-founder Jack Goldsmith, Executive Editor Scott Anderson, Senior Editor Quinta Juresic and Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes:

John Bellinger remembered Sen. John Warner for his political independence, expertise and integrity.

Jordan Schneider shared an episode of ChinaTalk in which he and Ilan Gur discussed ways to improve Americas research and development and solve entrepreneurial bottlenecks:

Jim Dempsey proposed strengthening regulatory guidelines following the Transportation Security Administrations (TSAs) new emergency directive in the wake of the ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline in May.

Alan Rozenshtein argued that the governments best defense of a digital surveillance system in the interest of public health would rely on the special needs exemption to the Fourth Amendment.

Michel Paradis provided background and analysis for the newest legislative effort to combat the prevalence of sexual assault in the military.

Jen Patja Howell also shared an episode of Rational Security covering the ransomware attack on meat processor JBS and a new search for evidence of the origins of the coronavirus. Madiha Afzal of the Brookings Institution joined to talk about withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan:

Howell also shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast in which Lawfare Executive Editor Scott Anderson and Natan Sachs, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and director of its Center for Middle East Policy, talked about the newest developments in Israels political landscape:

She also shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast's "Arbiters of Truth" series on our online information ecosystem. Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Juresic and Evelyn Douek spoke with Nikhil Pahwa about the latest clashes between online platforms and the Indian government:

Stewart Baker posted an episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast in which he interviews the authors of a widely publicized Ransomware Task Force report, asking them if good cybersecurity policy has to be boring:

Sam Cohen and Alex Vivona covered the latest news out of the South China Sea, including Sino-Philippine tensions over the Whitsun Reef.

Daniel Richman and Sarah Seo traced the history of federal and state oversight of policing as context for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which is pending Senate approval.

Rohini Kurup shared an annual Department of Defense report on civilian casualties in connection to U.S. military operations.

Bryce Klehm announced the Lawfare Live episode which featured Paradis taking questions on his new Lawfare article, Congress Demands Accountability for Service Members:

powered by Crowdcast

Klehm and Rozenshtein considered presidential immunity and First Amendment protections with regard to Rep. Bennie Thompsons lawsuit against Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani and far-right extremist group the Oath Keepers for their actions on Jan. 6.

Christiana Wayne shared the Supreme Courts ruling in Van Buren v. United States, a case with major implications for the future of the Computer Frauds and Abuses Act.

Evelyn Douek argued that Facebooks response to the Facebook Oversight Boards policy recommendations in regards to the suspension of Donald Trump is underwhelming.

Quinta Juresic analyzed recent court battles over the Mueller report and the tension between the administrations desire to break with the Trump years and the Justice Departments other institutional interests.

Eve Gaumond reviewed the European Commissions new Artificial Intelligence Act.

And Howell also shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast covering the latest in U.S.-China relations. Lawfare AssociateAssistant Editor Bryce Klehm sat down with Ryan Hass, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, for a wide-ranging discussion on the United Statess China policy. Hass is the author of the new book, Stronger: Adapting Americas China Strategy in an Age of Competitive Interdependence:

And that was the week that was.

Visit link:
The Week that Was: All of Lawfare in One Post - Lawfare

One of the New York Times reporters whose phone records were seized by the Trump Justice Department spoke out on CNNs Reliable Sources on Sunday. New reporting has revealed that top executives at the Times were under a gag order to shield it from public view.

Adam Goldman told Brian Stelter it was certainly disappointing but not surprising, recalling how his phone records were secretly obtained by the Obama DOJ in 2013 when he was at the Associated Press.

The U.S. attorneys office in D.C. has a history of trampling on the First Amendment, so thats why I wasnt surprised, Goldman said. They treat the media, they treat newspapers like drug gangs.

Like drug gangs? a stunned Stelter asked.

Yes. Like drug gangs, Goldman stated.

He said there should be actual consequences and enforcement action for when these prosecutors take these outrageous steps.

President Joe Biden was recently questioned by CNNs Kaitlan Collins on the DOJ seizing phone records of reporters, and he said he would not let that happen.

Collins noted Sunday how long it took the White House to send out a statement affirming there is a new policy in place.

Just because they change their policy doesnt mean it is going to be the policy going forward, and I think there are a lot o unanswered questions about what this policy is going to look like, she added.

Mediaite founder and ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams said the lack of transparency is really indefensible, but argued that such leak investigations may be justified in some circumstances. But I agree with Adam, he added, that codifying a set of standards and the standard ought to be really high for snooping on journalists.

In the past few weeks, there have also been reports that the Trump DOJ seized the phone records of Washington Post and CNN reporters, hence Collins question to Biden.

You can watch above, via CNN.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

More here:
'Trampling on the First Amendment': NY Times Reporter Speaks Out on DOJ Seizing His Phone Records - Mediaite

Religious freedom advocates are awaiting a major ruling from the Supreme Court this month. It hinges on LGBTQ advocates trying to force a faith-based foster agency to violate its religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court will decide the future of Philadelphia's Catholic Social Services agency which is asking to follow the church's teaching and not partner with same-sex or unmarried couples. It's a high-stakes religious liberty fight.Dr. Andrew Walker, a professor of ethics with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says, "What we are contending for in this case is that Catholic Social services have an equal right to participate in the public squareand the way they are serving in the public square is to serve the most needy among uschildren without homes."

Regent University Law School Professor Brad Jacob explains, "The Supreme Court told us when they said that the Constitution requires same-sex marriage that of course, the law will protect those that have a different view in their religious or moral conscience, but in many cases, that's not happening."

LGBTQ advocates like the Human Rights Campaign say the case is about discrimination, and a decision against the city of Philadelphia would open a "Pandora's Box" for future discrimination.

But Prof. Walker, who is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, disagrees.

"Discrimination implies locking people out, a class of people out from an entire industryand that's not what's going on," he says. "What's going on in Fulton is you have one adoption agency that's wanting to operate according to its beliefs."

***As Big Tech censorship and the woke cancel culture continueto grow, please sign up forCBN Newslettersand download theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

Catholic Social Services never actually turned away any gay couples, and there are dozens of Philadelphia foster agencies that work with them, so Prof. Jacob says they can't ultimately lose.

"They can adopt either waythey don't need Catholic Social Services. This is an effort on their part to basically stamp out anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview," he says.

Court watchers are closely watching the case, with its hot-button issues, in the hands of a new conservative majority.

"We have a Supreme Court that's probably for the first time as pro-religious liberty in its design as it has been in perhaps the history of the Supreme Court," Walker says.The big question with Fulton is how broadly will the justices rule? They could revisit a 1990 case that decimated free exercise of religion and provide a substantial win for people of faith. Or they could announce a narrow decision that would do little to advance either side.

See the original post:
Religious Liberty and the First Amendment on Trial Now at US Supreme Court - CBN News

The Supreme Court is staring at its self-imposed end-of-June deadline, but the justices have not yet released some of the most significant opinions of the term, including a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act and a case on religious liberty involving a Philadelphia foster agency.Recent weeks have seen justices clear their desks of those opinions that produce fewer divisions, as the tension grows for the big-ticket cases.At the same time, eyes are on any retirement plans of Justice Stephen Breyer, 82. His departure would allow President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats to replace him with a much younger liberal. Justices have often announced their retirements at the end of a term. Here's what the court has on its docket:Obamacare (again)Republican-led states aided by the former Trump administration are trying to get the court to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama's most significant legislative achievement.The case marks the third time the court heard a significant challenge to the 2010 law, although the stakes are heightened given the implications of COVID-19, the catastrophic deaths and the current burdens facing the health care industry.As things stand, Texas and other Republican-led states are challenging the law and California and other Democratic-led states, the House of Representatives and the Biden administration support the law.In one of his first acts as president, Biden informed the court that his government was reversing the position taken by the Trump administration. The Department of Justice now argues that even if the individual mandate is constitutional and that even if the court finds otherwise, it should sever the mandate and allow every other provision to stand.Religious liberty, LGBTQ rights and a Philadelphia foster agencyAt issue is a major dispute pitting claims of religious liberty against the LGBTQ community. It comes as the new conservative majority has moved aggressively to protect rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.In the case heard in early November, Philadelphia froze the contract of a Catholic foster agency because the agency refused to work with same-sex couples as potential foster parents. The agency, Catholic Social Services, sued under the First Amendment.Philadelphia defended its action, saying the agency violated anti-discrimination laws that are neutral and applicable to everyone.Supporters of LGBTQ rights support the city, arguing it was within its rights to freeze the contract to an organization receiving taxpayer funds and turning away same-sex couples. They fear that a decision in favor of CSS would clear the way for religious organizations to get exemptions from non-discrimination laws in other contexts.Supporters of expanding religious liberty rights hope the court's conservative majority, expanding upon a trend from last term, will continue to hold the government to a higher standard when it comes to regulations that impact religious believers.Arizona voting rights lawThe Supreme Court is considering two provisions of Arizona law that the Democratic National Committee says violate the historic Voting Rights Act that prohibits laws that result in racial discrimination.One part of the state law requires that in-person Election Day voters cast their votes in their assigned precinct. Another provision says that only certain persons family, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials may deliver another person's completed ballot to the polling place.Eight years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, effectively gutting Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision that required states with a history of discrimination to obtain the permission of the federal government or the courts before enacting new laws related to voting.Since that decision, challengers to voting restrictions have increasingly turned to Section 2 of the law, that holds that no voting regulation can be imposed that "results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." Democrats fear the new conservative majority on the court will now weaken Section 2.The case comes as Republican state legislators across the country are also moving at a fast clip to pass laws to restrict voting access.Fourth Amendment: Warrants when in 'hot pursuit'The justices are considering a case about when a police officer needs a warrant to enter the sanctity of an individual's home. In general, in such circumstances a warrant is required, although the Supreme Court has held that under certain exigent circumstances, a warrant is not required.If, for example, an officer is in "hot pursuit" of a driver or if emergency aid is needed a warrant is not always necessary.The case at hand explores whether a categorical exception to a warrant holds up if the officer thinks the person he is following in "hot pursuit" committed a less serious offense: a misdemeanor. It's the first time the justices have looked at the scope of the "hot pursuit" doctrine when it comes to a minor violation.NCAA amateur rulesThe case offers the Supreme Court the opportunity for the first time in decades to examine the relationship between NCAA spending limits and student-athletes who are seeking compensation for their talents.At issue is a lower court ruling that struck down spending caps for "education related benefits" because, the court held, they violated antitrust laws. The NCAA is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision arguing that it is going to allow money to pour into the system under the guise of "education" which will destroy the distinction between amateur and pro sports. A lawyer for a class of students said the lower court got it right, and worried about the exploitation of students.Union organizingThe Supreme Court is again considering the power of union organizers in a case that pits agriculture businesses and privacy rights advocates against big labor and raises questions of when the government can allow access to private property without compensation. A ruling against the union position in the case would come after the Supreme Court in 2018 dealt a blow to the funding of public-sector unions.The case is brought by agricultural growers challenging a California state law that allows union organizers onto their property to speak to workers unannounced. They say it amounts to a government "taking" of the land without just compensation.The Biden administration is supporting the union's position, a change from the Trump administration, which had backed the employers.Dark moneyConservative non-profits Americans for Prosperity (a Koch-affiliated group) and the Thomas More Law Center are challenging a California law that requires charitable organizations that solicit donations to disclose a list of their contributors to the state attorney general.The groups say they want to keep their donors secret and that the state has not shown a compelling reason for the law. They argue that the law will chill contributors from coming forward for fear of harassment in violation of the First Amendment. Although the information is supposed to be confidential, the groups say that the state may make inadvertent disclosures.In response, California argues that the groups already have to file the same data with the IRS and the state needs the information as it tries to combat fraud related to charities. Three other states New York, New Jersey and Hawaii have similar laws.The case is being closely watched by those who fear it could lead to more anonymous "Dark Money" flowing into the system."The nonprofits are asking the Supreme Court to make it harder for the government to require the disclosure of donor information," said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, an expert on campaign finance at Notre Dame Law School. "While the case is about a state Attorney General asking for this information, if the Supreme Court raised the bar here, that would likely also apply to election donor disclosure laws down the road."Cheerleader and off-campus speechThe justices are looking at a First Amendment case concerning the authority of public school officials to discipline students for what they say outside of school.Then-junior varsity cheerleader Brandi Levy, who didn't make the varsity squad lashed out on social media while she was off campus, writing, " school softball cheer everything." The words were accompanied by a picture of her giving a middle-digit salute.After the outburst, the girl was suspended from the squad as having violated team and school rules. Lawyers for the girl sued alleging the school had violated her freedom of speech. The girl won in the lower courts that held that school could not remove her for off-campus speech. According to the court of appeals, she did not "waive her First Amendment rights as a condition of joining the team."Back in 1969, the Supreme Court held that public school officials could regulate speech that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." But that decision concerned speech at school."Empowering public school officials to censor what students say when they are outside of school would be an epic restriction of young people's freedom of expression," said Witold Walczak of the ACLU, defending the student.The Biden administration has weighed in in favor of the school arguing that there is some speech, that "intentionally targets specific school functions" that warrant discipline even if it occurs off campus.

The Supreme Court is staring at its self-imposed end-of-June deadline, but the justices have not yet released some of the most significant opinions of the term, including a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act and a case on religious liberty involving a Philadelphia foster agency.

Recent weeks have seen justices clear their desks of those opinions that produce fewer divisions, as the tension grows for the big-ticket cases.

At the same time, eyes are on any retirement plans of Justice Stephen Breyer, 82. His departure would allow President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats to replace him with a much younger liberal. Justices have often announced their retirements at the end of a term.

Here's what the court has on its docket:

Republican-led states aided by the former Trump administration are trying to get the court to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama's most significant legislative achievement.

The case marks the third time the court heard a significant challenge to the 2010 law, although the stakes are heightened given the implications of COVID-19, the catastrophic deaths and the current burdens facing the health care industry.

As things stand, Texas and other Republican-led states are challenging the law and California and other Democratic-led states, the House of Representatives and the Biden administration support the law.

In one of his first acts as president, Biden informed the court that his government was reversing the position taken by the Trump administration. The Department of Justice now argues that even if the individual mandate is constitutional and that even if the court finds otherwise, it should sever the mandate and allow every other provision to stand.

At issue is a major dispute pitting claims of religious liberty against the LGBTQ community. It comes as the new conservative majority has moved aggressively to protect rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

In the case heard in early November, Philadelphia froze the contract of a Catholic foster agency because the agency refused to work with same-sex couples as potential foster parents. The agency, Catholic Social Services, sued under the First Amendment.

Philadelphia defended its action, saying the agency violated anti-discrimination laws that are neutral and applicable to everyone.

Supporters of LGBTQ rights support the city, arguing it was within its rights to freeze the contract to an organization receiving taxpayer funds and turning away same-sex couples. They fear that a decision in favor of CSS would clear the way for religious organizations to get exemptions from non-discrimination laws in other contexts.

Supporters of expanding religious liberty rights hope the court's conservative majority, expanding upon a trend from last term, will continue to hold the government to a higher standard when it comes to regulations that impact religious believers.

The Supreme Court is considering two provisions of Arizona law that the Democratic National Committee says violate the historic Voting Rights Act that prohibits laws that result in racial discrimination.

One part of the state law requires that in-person Election Day voters cast their votes in their assigned precinct. Another provision says that only certain persons family, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials may deliver another person's completed ballot to the polling place.

Eight years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, effectively gutting Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision that required states with a history of discrimination to obtain the permission of the federal government or the courts before enacting new laws related to voting.

Since that decision, challengers to voting restrictions have increasingly turned to Section 2 of the law, that holds that no voting regulation can be imposed that "results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." Democrats fear the new conservative majority on the court will now weaken Section 2.

The case comes as Republican state legislators across the country are also moving at a fast clip to pass laws to restrict voting access.

The justices are considering a case about when a police officer needs a warrant to enter the sanctity of an individual's home. In general, in such circumstances a warrant is required, although the Supreme Court has held that under certain exigent circumstances, a warrant is not required.

If, for example, an officer is in "hot pursuit" of a driver or if emergency aid is needed a warrant is not always necessary.

The case at hand explores whether a categorical exception to a warrant holds up if the officer thinks the person he is following in "hot pursuit" committed a less serious offense: a misdemeanor. It's the first time the justices have looked at the scope of the "hot pursuit" doctrine when it comes to a minor violation.

The case offers the Supreme Court the opportunity for the first time in decades to examine the relationship between NCAA spending limits and student-athletes who are seeking compensation for their talents.

At issue is a lower court ruling that struck down spending caps for "education related benefits" because, the court held, they violated antitrust laws. The NCAA is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision arguing that it is going to allow money to pour into the system under the guise of "education" which will destroy the distinction between amateur and pro sports. A lawyer for a class of students said the lower court got it right, and worried about the exploitation of students.

The Supreme Court is again considering the power of union organizers in a case that pits agriculture businesses and privacy rights advocates against big labor and raises questions of when the government can allow access to private property without compensation. A ruling against the union position in the case would come after the Supreme Court in 2018 dealt a blow to the funding of public-sector unions.

The case is brought by agricultural growers challenging a California state law that allows union organizers onto their property to speak to workers unannounced. They say it amounts to a government "taking" of the land without just compensation.

The Biden administration is supporting the union's position, a change from the Trump administration, which had backed the employers.

Conservative non-profits Americans for Prosperity (a Koch-affiliated group) and the Thomas More Law Center are challenging a California law that requires charitable organizations that solicit donations to disclose a list of their contributors to the state attorney general.

The groups say they want to keep their donors secret and that the state has not shown a compelling reason for the law. They argue that the law will chill contributors from coming forward for fear of harassment in violation of the First Amendment. Although the information is supposed to be confidential, the groups say that the state may make inadvertent disclosures.

In response, California argues that the groups already have to file the same data with the IRS and the state needs the information as it tries to combat fraud related to charities. Three other states New York, New Jersey and Hawaii have similar laws.

The case is being closely watched by those who fear it could lead to more anonymous "Dark Money" flowing into the system.

"The nonprofits are asking the Supreme Court to make it harder for the government to require the disclosure of donor information," said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, an expert on campaign finance at Notre Dame Law School. "While the case is about a state Attorney General asking for this information, if the Supreme Court raised the bar here, that would likely also apply to election donor disclosure laws down the road."

The justices are looking at a First Amendment case concerning the authority of public school officials to discipline students for what they say outside of school.

Then-junior varsity cheerleader Brandi Levy, who didn't make the varsity squad lashed out on social media while she was off campus, writing, "[expletive] school [expletive] softball [expletive] cheer [expletive] everything." The words were accompanied by a picture of her giving a middle-digit salute.

After the outburst, the girl was suspended from the squad as having violated team and school rules. Lawyers for the girl sued alleging the school had violated her freedom of speech. The girl won in the lower courts that held that school could not remove her for off-campus speech. According to the court of appeals, she did not "waive her First Amendment rights as a condition of joining the team."

Back in 1969, the Supreme Court held that public school officials could regulate speech that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." But that decision concerned speech at school.

"Empowering public school officials to censor what students say when they are outside of school would be an epic restriction of young people's freedom of expression," said Witold Walczak of the ACLU, defending the student.

The Biden administration has weighed in in favor of the school arguing that there is some speech, that "intentionally targets specific school functions" that warrant discipline even if it occurs off campus.

Go here to read the rest:
These are the decisions to watch for during the Supreme Court's final month - WBAL Baltimore

Lt. Governor Janice McGeaching announcing her run for Governor during a rally in Idaho Falls May 19. | Rett Nelson, EastIdahoNews.com

BOISE (Idaho Capital Sun) Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachins office on Thursday sent the Idaho Capital Sun 238 pages of public records from Idahoans, sought by her to inform her education task force.

But most of it was covered in black boxes with the word REDACTED.

The delivery followed six weeks of back-and-forth with the lieutenant governors chief of staff. And by the end of the day Friday, McGeachin had taken to social media, accusing the Sun of trying to get personal information about people who responded to her appeal for stories of indoctrination in schools.

Not only are they requesting the comments, but they are also demanding the names and email addresses of those who made the comments, she wrote in a Facebook post on her official lieutenant governor page. We have been making an effort to comply with their requests in a manner that is respectful of Idahoans and their personal information, but they are insistent that we give them YOUR personal information. I believe this would violate your rights and I am doing everything I can to protect your information.

The lieutenant governor has assembled a task force to review claims of indoctrination in Idahos public schools. That task force met for the first time on May 27, taking no public comment.

RELATED | McGeachin announces indoctrination task force members

McGeachin announced the task force on April 8, saying it would protect our young people from the scourge of critical race theory, socialism, communism and Marxism.

As I have traveled around the state and spoken with constituents and parents, it has become clear to me that this is one of the most significant threats facing our society today, she said in the announcement. We must find where these insidious theories and philosophies are lurking and excise them from our education system. Idahoans are increasingly frustrated by the apparent lack of awareness and leadership coming from the state on these issues.

McGeachin on April 21 announced on her website that she was seeking comments from the public regarding what Idaho schools teach students. She solicited the comments via Google Form.

RELATED | Lt. Gov. McGeachin seeks Idahoans feedback for task force examining indoctrination in schools

That day, the Idaho Capital Sun requested a copy of the public records created by that form a public record that is maintained by the lieutenant governors office as a spreadsheet.

The Sun requested a copy of the Google Sheet data from the Lt. Gov.s Education Task Force Feedback Form, as the record exists at the time this public record request is processed. Please provide the data in its raw spreadsheet format.

McGeachins Chief of Staff Jordan Watters responded to the request on May 4, saying the office had received about 3,600 comments. He provided a general breakdown of some of the data the level of education to which comments applied (e.g. 25.1% applied to high school) and the position of the person submitting comments (e.g. 31.4% chose concerned citizen).

But Watters said the lieutenant governors office would redact names, email addresses and personally identifying information contained in the written comments submitted by the public. He estimated $560 in costs to redact the information, which the Idaho Capital Sun would have to pay to receive the incomplete records.

The Sun immediately responded, asking for the legal justification to redact information.

Watters responded 16 days later, saying: Idaho code section 74-109(3) exempts from disclosure personal identifying information relating to a private citizen contained in a writing to or from a member of the Idaho Legislature, The Education Task Force is co-chaired by Rep. Priscilla Giddings, who is a member of the Idaho Legislature. As Rep. Giddings has access to the information submitted through the feedback form, personally identifying information submitted through that form qualifies as a writing to a member of the Idaho legislature, and is thus exempt from disclosure.

Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachins office took six weeks to provide a heavily redacted copy of public records to the Idaho Capital Sun. The office blacked out all feedback it received from more than 3,000 Idahoans. | Idaho Capital Sun

The Sun and other media outlets routinely request and receive public comments. For example, the Sun in April requested copies of comments submitted to Gov. Brad Little regarding a bill on voter initiatives. The governors office provided the public records days earlier than the deadline to do so in Idahos public records law.

RELATED | WATCH: Lt. Gov. McGeachin announces run for Idaho governor

When the lieutenant governors office refused to provide records, the Sun immediately reached out to the Idaho Press Clubs First Amendment Committee.

Stoel Rives attorney Wendy Olson sent the lieutenant governors office a letter on behalf of the Press Club and Sun reporter Audrey Dutton, saying that exemption did not apply and demanding the office send the unredacted records to Dutton by May 27 the day of the task forces first meeting.

Instead of providing the records, Watters sent an email. We are currently working with the (Attorney Generals) office and should have a more substantive response for you soon, he wrote.

The Idaho Attorney Generals Office acts as the primary law firm for the state. It has deputy attorneys general who work with state offices to provide legal counsel. Attorney General Lawrence Wasden also publishes a manual that describes Idahos public records laws, exemptions and the publics recourse when those laws arent followed.

The next email came on June 2.

Our office can provide you with a copy of our existing spreadsheet which includes the raw data that you requested, Watters wrote. However, our spreadsheet contains additional information, such as narratives and contact information that appear to be outside the scope of your request. If you believe this additional information is within the scope of your original request, please let us know and we will provide you with any information not otherwise exempt from public disclosure.

The Sun thanked him in advance for providing the full public record as requested.

But the next day, he sent over a file with names, contact information and the entirety of the public comments blacked out.

The lieutenant governors office did not include a citation to the Idaho law under which it made the redactions, as required by Idahos public records law.

The written denial for all or part of a request for information must state the statutory authority for the denial, and include a clear statement of the right to appeal and the time for doing so, according to the Idaho Attorney Generals Public Records Law Manual. In addition, it is also required that the public agency state that the attorney for the public agency has reviewed the request or shall state that the public agency or independent public body corporate and politic has had an opportunity to consult with an attorney regarding the request for examination or copying of a record and has chosen not to do so.

A lawsuit is the only recourse Idahos public records law gives the public and the media if they believe a government entity has wrongfully denied access to public records.

The opinion of the attorney generals office is that the only legitimate reason for the agency not to consult with an attorney is that the exemption from disclosure is clear, the manual says. If that is the case, the letter of denial should so state. Above all, if there is any doubt about whether the information is exempt from disclosure, it is imperative that the public agency seek legal advice.

Redactions are a partial denial of a public record request. But McGeachins office did not include any of the above statements in its response.

Watters on Friday afternoon said he would have to start over on the Suns request, saying the public comments were not in the scope of the Suns initial request for the full spreadsheet.

Meanwhile, McGeachin had posted to Facebook, questioning the Suns motives for seeking a copy of public comments that will be used to inform a task force on public education:

Why does the media want YOUR personal information? Do they plan to release it and encourage employers and government agencies to retaliate against Idahoans who have expressed concerns about Idahos education system? she wrote. I believe that releasing this information would have a chilling effect on YOUR right to communicate your concerns to elected officials in Idaho. I remain committed to taking whatever legal actions are necessary to protect your personal information from being exposed by the media.

Read this article:
McGeachin's office refuses to release public comments on 'indoctrination' task force - East Idaho News