News organizations generally, and newspapers specifically, have played an important role for decades in strengthening American democracy by litigating for free expression and responsible government. One of the little-noticed effects of the changing newspaper revenue model in the 21st century has been the lack of resources for newspapers to pursue beneficial litigation on behalf of the public interest. This phenomenon has been documented by University of Utah law professor RonNell Andersen Jones.
Fortunately, some news organizations, other non-profits and pro bono lawyers are still engaging in public-interest litigation. I had the opportunity to be involved in two such cases over the last couple of years. The result was two opinions this week by the Utah Supreme Court in favor of the principles behind public access to government meetings:
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Kane County Commission and Garfield County Commission
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. San Juan County Commission
Both cases had to do with meetings held several years ago by county commissioners in southern Utah with then-Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. The meetings were not held in public and did not comply with various provisions of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. The topic was the possible shrinking of national monument boundaries in those counties.
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed a lawsuit asking a court to declare that the meetings should have been held in public. The counties’ response was to claim that SUWA lacked standing because the counties did not have authority themselves to alter the monument boundaries and therefore the open-meetings requirements did not apply to them. In response, SUWA and a group of news organizations that I represented as amicus curiae parties argued that the county commissioners did have authority over their input to Secretary Zinke about the monument boundaries and how the decision would impact their counties’ economies and other areas.
This week the Utah Supreme Court agreed that SUWA does have standing and that district court judges erred in imposing large attorneys’ fees awards in favor of the counties. While the news organizations did not advocate for all of SUWA’s positions, they did agree with SUWA on the standing issue and on the point that the meetings should have been public. The briefs I filed on behalf of the Deseret News, Fox13 KSTU-TV and the Utah Headliners Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists explain more detail:
Amicus-Brief-Garfield-and-Kane-Cos-8-29-19
Amicus-Brief-San-Juan-Co-8-29-19
It is important to clarify that my representation of the news organizations is disconnected from my role as a professor of communications at Brigham Young University. In my off-hours from BYU, I occasionally engage in litigation involving parties and causes that I believe in but this does not in any way imply endorsement of those parties’ positions by BYU or its sponsoring institution, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
