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

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

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