United States
State of Hawai'i and Elshikh v. Trump
Decision Date: March 15, 2017
The District Court for Hawaii imposed a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) on the second Executive Order issued by U.S. President Donald J. Trump placing restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals. The initial Executive Order, issued by the President during his first week in office, placed broad restrictions on individuals traveling to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries. A Washington court placed a TRO on the Order, which was upheld at the Ninth Circuit, on the grounds that the Order was likely unconstitutional and was likely to cause irreparable harm if implemented. President Trump then issued a second Executive Order which, among other things, removed some of the problematic language in the first Order. The Plaintiff State of Hawaii claimed that the Executive Order inflicts constitutional and statutory injuries on its residents, employers and educational institutions while Plaintiff Dr. Elshikh alleged injuries on behalf of himself, members of his family and members of his Mosque.
The Court found that both the State of Hawaii and Dr. Elshikh had standing to hear the case, and that the Executive Order was likely to be found unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause because the Order did not have a religiously neutral purpose. The Court reasoned that because violation of a party's constitutional rights constitutes irreparable harm and is always contrary to the public interest, a TRO to block the Order from taking effect until courts could decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction, and ultimately, decide on the merits of the constitutional claims, was justified.
Canada
R v. Vice Media Canada, Inc.
Decision Date: March 29, 2016
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld a production order against Vice Media and one of its reporters to produce communications with a suspect in a terrorism investigation, finding that the interests of law enforcement outweighed the interests of the media. Further, the Court unsealed part of the production order but ordered a publication ban pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the suspect to protect his right to a fair trial. In upholding the validity of the production order the Court reasoned that production of the material requested would lead to evidence pertaining to potential criminal activities not obtainable by other means.
This case is currently on appeal to the High Court in Ontario and we have updated our analysis to include summaries of 5 Factum Briefs received by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression. Vice is arguing that the lower court erred in failing to place sufficient weight on the role of the media, failed to take into account the probative value of the evidence, and erred in upholding a sealing order and publication ban. Several media and journalist organizations in Canada intervened arguing that issuing justices must always take into account the chilling effect their ruling may have on the media and "examine the purpose and value of the production order being sought." Additionally, they argue that on appeal production orders should be reviewed de novo, assessed as if for the first time. The judgment is pending.
|
|
|
United Kingdom
R (Ingenious Media) v. Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Decision Date: October 19, 2016
The UK Supreme Court found that a senior tax official had not been permitted to disclose confidential information in an "off the record" interview with The Times newspaper. The case arose from an interview given by a senior official from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to a journalist about an investment firm's schemes to avoid taxes by taking advantage of certain tax reliefs. HMRC argued that the disclosure was justified under a statutory provision that permitted disclosures where they were "made for the purposes of a function of [HMRC]". HMRC alleged that the disclosure was made for the purpose of fostering good relations with the financial press and to publicize their views on tax avoidance schemes. The UK Supreme Court held that the relevant statutory provision should be read narrowly so as to only permit disclosure that was reasonably necessary for HMRC to fulfill its primary function of revenue collection and management. In this case, the UK Supreme Court held that the disclosure was unjustified and that there had been a breach of confidentiality.
|
|
|
Ethiopia
The Case of Kedir Moahmmed Yusuf
Decision Date: January 3, 2017
On January 3 2017, the Federal High Court of Ethiopia sentenced Radio Bilal journalists Khalid Mohammed Ahmed and Darsema Sori, along with 17 other defendants, to prison following their conviction in December for inciting extremist ideology and planning to overthrow the government. The journalists were imprisoned in connection with their coverage of protests by Ethiopian Muslims against rising government interference in their religious affairs. The other defendants were charged with organizing unlawful demonstrations and inciting protests among Muslims. They were convicted under the country’s 2009 Anti-Terrorism Proclamation and the Federal Penal Code. The official court documents have not been made public but there have been alleged irregularities with the case which coincide with a government crackdown on journalists over recent months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
