Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the government's motion for a temporary restraining order to block distribution of the new memoir by former national security advisor John Bolton. Though Judge Lamberth ruled that "Bolton’s unilateral conduct raises grave national security concerns," he found that "the horse is out of the barn" regarding Bolton's memoir—which will be published on June 23—and wrote that, "For reasons that hardly need to be stated, the Court will not order a nationwide seizure and destruction of a political memoir."
Latest in First Amendment
Bolton’s lawyers persuasively argue that the court lacks the authority to issue the requested injunction. They also show why his non-disclosure agreements are narrower than the government portrays, and how irregular his pre-clearance review process was.
Judge Lamberth will convene a hearing on June 19 at 1:00 p.m. to consider the government's petition for a temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction. What are the relevant legal issues at play, and what questions should Lamberth ask the government?
After suing former national security advisor John Bolton for his alleged breach of nondisclosure agreements related to the publication of his book, "The Room Where it Happens," the Trump administration has filed for a temporary restraining order against the book's release. The application is available here and below.
The government faces many hurdles.
The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against former National Security Advisor John Bolton over the publication of his upcoming book, "The Room Where it Happened," which is currently slated for June 23 and has already been shipped to stores. The government alleges that the book contains classified information and that Bolton has breached nondisclosure agreements with the government to submit to the prepublication review process by going ahead with publication.
As Congress decides whether to change the legal underpinnings of the internet, we need a better understanding of why it passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the first place.
On Thursday, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a superseding indictment charging WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with 17-counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiring to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The full document is below.
On Tuesday, former intelligence and military officials filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the government's pre-publication review process, which requires former personnel to submit public writing for review before publication. The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, is available in full here and below.
Document: Fourth Circuit Says Virginia Politician’s Facebook Page is a ‘Public Forum’ and that First Amendment Prohibits Blocking Constituents
On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in Davidson v. Randall that a Virginia county official who blocked a constituent's access to the official’s Facebook page had violated the First Amendment. The court held that the official’s Facebook account amounted to a “public forum” and that blocking constituent access based on political viewpoints is unconstitutional. The full ruling is below.