Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Quick background (as reported by CATO and the New York Times)
:
The federal government prosecuted two Kansas doctors for prescribing painkillers that were later abused by their patients. Siohban Reynolds was an outspoken critic of this prosecution and runs a non-profit critical of this practice.
The government prosecutor in the case became so annoyed, she asked the judge for a gag order on Ms. Reynolds, even though she was not a defendant or lawyer in the case. The judge, of course, denied this, citing Ms. Reynolds First Amendment rights. After this, the prosecutor obained a grand jury supoena with almost 100 subparts demanding Ms. Reynolds submit documents, e-mails, phone records, checks, bank records, credit card receipts, photographs, videos and "Facebook" communications.
Ms. Reynolds challenged the subpoena arguing that the prosecutor was now trying to shut down her First Amendment rights by using the subpoena instead of the gag order to achieve the same effect. The judge denied her challenge. Ms. Reynolds appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In support of her case, ACLU, the Institute for Justice and the Reason Foundation filed amicus briefs that were highly critical of the federal prosecutor and supporting the First Amendment issues. Citing grand jury secrecy rules, the 10th Circuit sealed those amicus briefs from public view even though everything in the briefs is a matter of public record. In yet another sealed ruling, the Court denied the motion of the parties to unseal their own amicus briefs. So not only can we not know why the Grand Jury subpoena was upheld, we can't even read the legal arguments from third parties as to why this practice may be unconstitutional.
The case is now reached the Supreme Court and is awaiting a decision on cert. You may read the petition here.
:
The federal government prosecuted two Kansas doctors for prescribing painkillers that were later abused by their patients. Siohban Reynolds was an outspoken critic of this prosecution and runs a non-profit critical of this practice.
The government prosecutor in the case became so annoyed, she asked the judge for a gag order on Ms. Reynolds, even though she was not a defendant or lawyer in the case. The judge, of course, denied this, citing Ms. Reynolds First Amendment rights. After this, the prosecutor obained a grand jury supoena with almost 100 subparts demanding Ms. Reynolds submit documents, e-mails, phone records, checks, bank records, credit card receipts, photographs, videos and "Facebook" communications.
Ms. Reynolds challenged the subpoena arguing that the prosecutor was now trying to shut down her First Amendment rights by using the subpoena instead of the gag order to achieve the same effect. The judge denied her challenge. Ms. Reynolds appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In support of her case, ACLU, the Institute for Justice and the Reason Foundation filed amicus briefs that were highly critical of the federal prosecutor and supporting the First Amendment issues. Citing grand jury secrecy rules, the 10th Circuit sealed those amicus briefs from public view even though everything in the briefs is a matter of public record. In yet another sealed ruling, the Court denied the motion of the parties to unseal their own amicus briefs. So not only can we not know why the Grand Jury subpoena was upheld, we can't even read the legal arguments from third parties as to why this practice may be unconstitutional.
The case is now reached the Supreme Court and is awaiting a decision on cert. You may read the petition here.