About this blog

Case Disclosed is a blog written by students, supervising attorneys, directors, alumni, and friends of the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic.

The views expressed on this blog belong to the author(s) and do not represent the views of Yale Law School or the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic (MFIA).

National Freedom of Information Coalition

On the passing of former NFOIC board president Mal Leary
May 26, 2023
NFOIC Board elects Jeff Roberts of Colorado to presidency
March 1, 2023
NFOIC 2023 Freedom of Information Research Competition Call
February 27, 2023
NFOIC signs on to a legal brief challenging fee waiver denials
December 5, 2022

View more

Tags

Privacy and Surveillance
Net Neutrality
First Amendment
Online Speech
Social Media
Fourth Estate
National Security
Open Records
Law Enforcement
Open Data
MFIA Docket
Public Forums
Censorship
Administrative Law
First Amendment Right of Access
Internet Intermediaries
Internet Infrastructure
Free Press
Constitutional Access
International Law
transparency
FOIA
Right to Petition
Government Transparency
Government Accountability
Newsgathering
reporter's privilege
Secrecy
CRIT
Information Fiduciaries
Free Expression
Technology
Free Speech
Mass Surveillance

Case Disclosed

Back to Basics: Why Partisan Gerrymandering Violates the First Amendment

March 12, 2019
By Simon Brewer

MFIA filed an amicus brief opposing partisan gerrymandering on behalf of the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School.

Read more

Trump and the Toothless Presidential Records Act

March 11, 2019
By Sara Worth '21

An ethics watchdog group is challenging the use of encrypted messaging apps by senior White House officials.

Read more

The Unreasonableness of "Reasonable" Prepublication Review, Part 1

February 11, 2019
By Katrin Marquez '20

In 1931, the landmark decision Near v. Minnesota established that, as a general matter, prior restraints—“government action[s] that prohibit[] speech or other expression before the speech happens”—are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. As with most First Amendment jurisprudence, the decision recognized that there could be exceptional circumstances in which prior restraints may be allowable, notably in the context of national security.

Read more

Pages