Randazza Legal Group has secured a significant victory for free speech rights in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The case, Berge v. School Committee of Gloucester, No. 22-1954, sets a crucial precedent protecting citizen journalists and public speech.
In a rare application of the obvious unconstitutionality exception to the qualified immunity doctrine, the First Circuit denied qualified immunity protection to public officials who threatened legal action against a citizen journalist for publishing a video of their interactions. The First Circuit’s opinion stated, “If the First Amendment means anything in a situation like this, it is that public officials cannot … threaten a person with legal action under an obviously inapt statute simply because he published speech they did not like.”
This ruling is particularly significant as it affirms that even without directly applicable precedent, officials can be held accountable for clearly unconstitutional actions. The court emphasized that even though the there was not “any precedent even vaguely applicable to the facts,” “the general constitutional rules … are so clear that … the unlawfulness of what occurred is apparent.” This decision marks a powerful check on the ever-expanding scope of qualified immunity and reinforces the fundamental right to publish information on matters of public concern.
The case arose when Inge Berge, a citizen journalist, openly recorded public officials in a school superintendent’s office while inquiring about COVID-19 policies. After publishing the video on social media, he was threatened with legal action by school officials under an inapplicable wiretap statute. The court’s ruling clarifies that publication on matters of public interest are protected by the First Amendment, and that the government’s threats related to such publications are unconstitutional.
“This ruling is a victory not just for our client, but for every citizen who dares to speak truth to power,” said Marc J. Randazza, managing partner of Randazza Legal Group and lead counsel to Mr. Berge. “It sends a clear message that government officials cannot use baseless legal threats to silence criticism or shut down unwanted publicity.”
The decision provides valuable precedent for future cases involving government retaliation against protected speech, particularly for citizen journalists, who play an increasingly vital role in public discourse.
Randazza Legal Group’s victory has since been highlighted by Bloomberg, the Institute for Justice, Reason, the Boston Herald, and WGBH.
