Will Gorsuch and friends continue to gag David Daleiden?

Life Legal asks Supreme Court to review 9th Circuit

Gorsuch after confirmation. No federal appeals court has ever upheld a gag order based on agreement to hide information of significant public interest.

The following comes from an Aug. 3 email from the Life Legal Defense Foundation.

Life Legal Defense Foundation today filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress.

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) filed a lawsuit against David Daleiden and his Center for Medical Progress (CMP) just weeks after Daleiden released videos showing Planned Parenthood directors negotiating the sale of baby body parts for profit. NAF sought a gag order prohibiting CMP from releasing additional footage recorded at its annual conferences, fearing further public scrutiny of the unethical and illegal business practices of its members.

Federal judge William Orrick, who previously served on the board of an organization that “partnered” with Planned Parenthood, issued the order. In doing so, he held that Daleiden contracted away his First Amendment speech rights when he signed the non-disclosure agreement NAF requires of all conference attendees, to avert public relations disasters like that which followed late-term abortionist Martin Haskell’s unveiling of the new technique of partial birth abortion at a NAF meeting in the 1990s.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the order without fully reviewing the case, as is required when First Amendment freedoms are at stake.

Life Legal’s vice president of legal affairs, Katie Short, notes that no federal appeals court has ever upheld a gag order that was based on the alleged agreement of the parties to hide information that is of significant public interest and concern.

Even Judge Orrick acknowledged that the public “has an interest in accessing the NAF materials.” Yet he—and the Ninth Circuit in its affirmation of Orrick’s ruling—elected to protect the interests of the abortion industry over the interests of taxpayers who fund Planned Parenthood to the tune of $550 million annually.

The Supreme Court has held the type of gag order issued by Judge Orrick to be unconstitutional prior restraints on speech, holding that prior restraints are “the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” The court has further held that the damage of gag orders “can be particularly great when the prior restraint falls upon the communication of news and commentary on current events,” which is exactly what Daleiden’s videos are.

Quoting other Supreme Court authority, the petition notes that the “dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression…of material that is embarrassing to the powers that be.”

“The abortion industry went after David Daleiden for one reason—to protect the reputation it carefully cultivated in four decades of public deception,” said Life Legal executive director Alexandra Snyder. “Our hope is that the Supreme Court will agree that First Amendment freedoms must not be extinguished to remove from public scrutiny issues of fundamental social and political importance.”



To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.


  1. Michael McDermott says:

    In the People’s Republic of Taxifornia it is a Governmentally Punishable Offense to be deemed (in Secret Star Chamber Proceedings) to have “Written Letters to the Editor Expressing Negative Views on Current Women’s Issues”.

    I know because they destroyed my career as a Fire Engineer with the SB County Fire Dept. – and I had to let myself be terminated for “Insubordination” before I could get my hands on Some of the Documents. Either you surrender to Big Syster and Plead Guilty to Stalinist Type Thought Crime – or you are Insubordinate and they get you for that.

    The alleged ‘1st Amendment’ is just that – an Allegation, which only operates if you tell the Gaystapo What they told you to say

    BTW – Judge Rick Brown heard part of…

  2. Michael McDermott says:

    BTW – former Justice Court Judge Rick Brown (acting as a part time superior court judge) heard part of the case, and although he was Late for the Trial because he was held up making a plea for Funding His Job – to the Defendant County Board of Supervisors, that didn’t stop him from siding with another County Employee – the opposing Radical Feminist County Counsel – who Also worked for the Defendants

    Neat and Tidy they were – and along with “Asking Questions” at a Public Forum at UC-BS (with the Twysted Syster accuser kept Secret during Discovery, and only produced when No Questions were allowed of the ‘witness’) – Feminist Justice & Retaliatory Purging was assured, in a manner even Joe Stalin would have approved
    Fear & Trembling…

  3. Michael McDermott says:

    Fear & Trembling Obey! (Ming the Merciless)
    Pander or Perish (the Gaystapo Thought Police)
    All Samey Same in the ‘in-u-endo’ Thought Crime Department

  4. Anonymous says:

    Read the substance of the article and the explanation of how fiercely the Courts defend against prior restraints of free speech. Then ask yourself: Could the title of the article (chosen by CCD??) be any MORE misleading?

  5. Michael McDermott says:

    I agree the title is curious – as Justice Gorsuch just made the USSC and has not (as far as I know) gagged anyone – although there are certainly ‘Justices’ who doubtless invoke the reflex. Ahem
    “FCDF (Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund) Asks SCOTUS to Review Unconstitutional Ban on David Daleiden’s Undercover Videos
    Brief = daleiden-v-naf-cert-petition-7-31-2017-final
    This week, we filed a petition for review in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold a federal judge’s order prohibiting the release of any recordings or other information from David Daleiden’s attendance at conventions hosted by the National Abortion Federation
    Daleiden, in the tradition of…

  6. Michael McDermott says:

    Nominees Enter Trump’s Courts with Praise
    There may be some drama with the president’s own staff, but Republicans have plenty of good things to say about his other hires: a popular slate of judges to the federal bench. As the health care debate unfolded on Capitol Hill, President Trump was simultaneously working to fulfill another promise — restoring order to the activist courts.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.