The Digital Media Law Project contributes to amicus curiae briefs in a variety of cases with important implications for online speech, journalism, and the public good. Below is a list of amicus efforts we have led or participated in. We are always looking for new amicus opportunities — please don't hesitate to contact us if you are trying to build a coalition or attract amicus support.

• Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd v. Wikileaks, No. CV08-0824 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2008). CMLP drafted portions of an amicus curiae brief and assisted in organizing a coalition of media organizations, including the Citizen Media Law Project, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Los Angeles Times, Gannett, Associated Press, and Society of Professional Journalists, opposing an injunction ordering the shutdown of the Wikileaks.org website. On February 29, 2008, the court dissolved the injunction and on March 5, the bank withdrew its lawsuit.

• Hatfill v. Mukasey, No. 08-5049 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 10, 2008). CMLP joined 28 of the country's leading news organizations, press associations, and nonprofits in filing an amicus curiae brief opposing the contempt citation issued against Toni Locy, a former reporter for USA Today.

• Jones Day v. BlockShopper LLC, No. 08CV4572 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 2008). CMLP joined Public Citizen, EFF, and Public Knowledge in submitting an amicus curiae brief in support of BlockShopper.com's motion to dismiss Jones Day's trademark claims against it based on BlockShopper's reporting on the home purchases of two of Jones Day's associates.  The court denied permission to file the brief.

• Dugas v. Robbins, No. BACV2008-491 (Mass. Sup. Ct. Nov. 7, 2008).  CMLP joined with the Online News Association, Media Bloggers Association, New England Press Association, and Globe Newspaper Company to submit an amicus curiae brief arguing that the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP statute applies to all parties who engage in petitioning activities, including members of the news media and professional bloggers. The court denied permission to file the brief.

• Noonan v. Staples, Inc., No. 07-2159 (1st Cir. Mar. 11, 2009). CMLP joined other media organizations and media law advocacy groups in seeking permission to submit an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to grant rehearing en banc. In Noonan, a three-judge panel of the First Circuit held that an outdated Massachusetts statute allowed a former Staples employee to hold the company liable for defamation based on a truthful email sent to employees explaining the reason for his termination, so long as he could prove that the email was sent with "actual malevolent intent or ill will." The court denied permission to file the brief.

• Maxon v. Ottawa Publ'g Co., No. 2008-MR-125 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 24, 2009). CMLP and other media and advocacy organizations submitted an amicus curiae brief urging an Illinois appellate court to protect the rights of anonymous Internet speakers by imposing important procedural safeguards before ordering disclosure of their identities. The court granted permission to file the brief.

• Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 05-36189 (9th Cir. May 21, 2009). CMLP joined Public Citizen, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in submitting an amicus curiae brief in support of Yahoo!'s petition for rehearing.  The brief asked the court to amend its previous opinion to omit dicta indicating that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act cannot be raised on a motion to dismiss, as well as to clarify that Section 230 applies to federal as well as state law claims.  The court amended its opinion along the lines suggested in the brief.

• The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc., No. 2009-0262 (N.H. June 22, 2009). CMLP and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press joined forces to submit an amicus curiae brief urging the New Hampshire Supreme Court to defend the First Amendment rights of a website that covers news about the mortgage industry.  The brief analyzed constitutional limitations on prior restraints in cases involving publication of leaked documents and urged the court to apply New Hampshire's qualified reporter's privilege to online news publishers. The court granted permission to file the brief. On May 6, 2010, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the lower court’s injunction was an unlawful prior restraint on speech and that the Implode-O-Meter website was covered by the state's reporter's privilege.

• United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769 (U.S. July 24, 2009). CMLP joined the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in submitting an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a federal statute that criminalizes the possession, creation or sale of a wide variety of depictions involving animals.

• Fustolo v. Hollander, No. SJC-10485 (Mass. Oct. 1, 2009). CMLP joined the ACLU of Massachusetts and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law of the Boston Bar Association in submitting an amicus curiae brief arguing that the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP statute applies to all parties who engage in petitioning activities, including members of the news media and paid staff of advocacy organizations.

• Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, Nos. 08-1498 & 09-89 (U.S. Nov. 23, 2009).  CMLP joined a coalition of academic researchers in submitting an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the federal "material support" for terrorism statute to protect speakers whose professional duties require them to communicate with, or about, proscribed groups for purely lawful purposes.

• Hammer v. Ashcroft, No. 09-504 (U.S. Nov. 25, 2009).  CMLP joined the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and twenty-three news media organizations in submitting an amicus curiae brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review federal rules that prohibit in-person interviews with death row inmates and ban the inmates from telling the press about the treatment, conditions, or actions of any other inmates.

• Wright Development Group LLC v. Walsh, No. 08-2783 (Ill. Mar. 3, 2010). CMLP and other media and advocacy organizations submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Illinois Supreme Court, urging the court to reject two lower courts’ narrow interpretations of the state’s Anti-SLAPP statute, known as the Citizen Participation Act.  The brief argues that a SLAPP defendant should be entitled to appellate review of a lower court ruling denying a motion to dismiss under the Citizen Participation Act, even when the case is subsequently dismissed on other grounds.  The brief also argues that the Citizen Participation Act protects statements made to the press at a public forum on an issue of public and governmental concern.

• Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 10-1372-CV (2d Cir. June 21, 2010). CMLP, EFF, and Public Citizen submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, urging the court to apply First Amendment scrutiny to the “hot news misappropriation” doctrine.  The brief, which was filed in support of neither party, highlights a long line of Supreme Court cases protecting truthful reporting of lawfully obtained facts and explores how traditional forms of intellectual property such as copyright and trademark include First Amendment “safety valves” to help ensure their protections do not stifle the free flow of information and vigorous public debate.  It also argues that First Amendment protection for sharing factual information is especially important in today’s online media environment, where both citizens and professional journalists process, comment upon, and share information from a plurality of sources at a breathtaking pace.  On June 20, 2011, the Second Circuit held that the "hot news" claims were preempted by federal copyright law, finding that the record below did not support a finding that there was an "extra element" of the defendant's conduct that would allow New York state law to punish that conduct without running afoul of preemption.

• Glik v. Cunniffe, No. 10-1764 (1st Cir. Jan. 23, 2011).  CMLP, joined by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., GateHouse Media, Inc., Globe Newspaper Company, Inc., The Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, Metro Corp., NBC Universal, Inc., New England Newspaper and Press Association, Inc., The New York Times Company, Newspapers of New England, Inc., the Online News Association, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in support of plaintiff-appelle Simon Glik.  Amici argued that the Massachusetts Wiretap Statute is unconstitutional if applied to criminalize recordings where the subjects of those recordings cannot reasonably expect their communications to be private.  The court denied permission to file the brief.  On August 26, 2011, the First Circuit issued a sweeping decision in the case upholding the First Amendment right to openly record the activities of government officials in public, and finding that the Wiretap Statute cannot be interpreted to criminalize such conduct.

• Globe Newspaper Company, Inc. v. Superior Court for County of Norfolk, No. SJC-10798 (Mass. Mar. 21, 2011).  CMLP, joined by Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc., GateHouse Media, Inc., Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, Metro Corp. d/b/a Boston Magazine, and New England Newspaper and Press Association, Inc. submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court arguing that a public right of access to inquest materials allows journalists, bloggers, and other news gatherers to inform citizens on matters of public concern.  On December 13, 2011, the SJC agreed with the amici and ruled that inquest materials in Massachusetts are subject to the public's right of access as soon as (1) a district attorney decides not to pursue an indictment or (2) a grand jury rules upon a request for an indictment.

• American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois v. Alvarez, No. 11-1286 (7th Cir. Apr. 22, 2011).  CMLP joined the American Society of News Editors, the Association of Capitol Reporters and Editors, the National Press Photographers Association, the Radio Television Digital News Association, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Society of Professional Journalists in submitting an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiff-appellant American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, challenging the Illinois Eavesdropping Act.  Amici argued that the Act is so broad that it inhibits the basic right to gather information. On May 8, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the amici, directing the district court to issue a preliminary injunction against the application of the law to the ACLU of Illinois.

• Baker v. Goldman Sachs & Co., No. 11-1591 (2nd Cir. July 1, 2011). CMLP, with 45 other media organizations, joined an amicus curiae brief drafted by the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press opposing appellant's motion to subpoena a Wall Street Journal reporter for his notes and non-confidential sources, arguing that New York's reporter's privilege should protect the reporter from having to comply. The court denied permission to file the brief.

• Jenzabar, Inc. v. Long Bow Group, Inc., No. 2011-P-1533 (Mass. App. Ct. January 18, 2012). The Digital Media Law Project (formerly the Citizen Media Law Project) filed an amicus curiae brief urging affirmance of the trial court's grant of summary judgment in the defendant-appellee's favor.  Defendant-appellee Long Bow Group, a documentary film company, posted speech critical of plaintiff-appellant Jenzabar on its website, and used Jenzabar's name in metadata to identify that content for users and search engines.  The DMLP argued that Jenzabar's invocation of trademark law to prohibit the use of its name in metadata was an effort to render Long Bow's protected speech inaccessible on the Internet and was therefore barred by the First Amendment and Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Long Bow, holding that: (1) Jenzabar's infringement claim failed because it did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding of likelihood of confusion; (2) allegations that Jenzabar's trademark was used for the purposes of critical commentary could not support a dilution claim; and (3) the fact that Long Bow's website did not possess a tendency to deceive consumers was fatal to its Massachusetts statutory claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices.