IndyStar, other news outlets file First Amendment lawsuit seeking media access to executions
On May 5, 2025, five media outlets represented by the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a complaint in the Southern District of Indiana against the state's highest-ranking prison officials, who are charged with carrying out the media ban.
The plaintiffs — the Associated Press, States Newsroom, Circle City Broadcasting, Tegna and Gannett, which owns IndyStar and several other Indiana publications — argue that excluding media from executions violates the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press, in turn limiting the public's ability to understand the proceedings.
In nearly every other death-penalty state, media representatives can gather firsthand information and serve as "surrogates for the public." The complaint cites Associated Press reporters' eyewitness accounts of botched executions in Idaho and Alabama.
"This coverage required reporter access to witness execution proceedings first-hand. A lack of access leaves the public with an incomplete understanding of the proceedings," the lawsuit reads.
Wyoming, the only other state that prohibits media witnesses from executions, has not carried out the death penalty since 1992, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
The lawsuit asks for the court to permit a media representative to attend executions.
In December 2024, Indiana carried out its first execution in 15 years. Journalist Casey Smith of the Indiana Capital Chronicle was able to attend, but only because she was one of the five people invited by the condemned man, Joseph Corcoran. Even then, the lawsuit says, Smith and other witnesses had little visibility and had to rely on a prison official to report Corcoran's last words.
The filing comes just about two weeks before the scheduled execution of Benjamin Ritchie, who was convicted of killing a Beech Grove police officer in 2002.
Ritchie requested a stay of the execution so he could pursue more legal claims alleging prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective counsel and a suspected diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The Indiana Supreme Court rejected that bid last month in an evenly divided vote and was obligated to schedule a date for the execution.
Ritchie is one of seven people currently on Indiana's death row. Three federal death row inmates remain at the maximum-security prison in Terre Haute.
Ryan Murphy is the communities reporter for IndyStar. She can be reached at rhmurphy@indystar.com.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: IndyStar, other media outlets sue for access to executions
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Adam Schiff Seeks FCC Answers On Potential Political Influence In Skydance-Paramount Merger Approval
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is demanding information from the FCC on the events that led to the agency's approval of Skydance's merger with Paramount Global, coming just weeks after a $16 million settlement was announced of Donald Trump's lawsuit against CBS. 'The sequence of actions and statements leading up to and following the FCC's merger approval, including Paramount's $16 million settlement with President Trump just days before the FCC issued its approval, raises significant questions and alarm that the FCC – an independent regulatory agency – has become a vehicle for President Trump to exact personal retribution and undermine the freedom of the press,' Schiff wrote in a letter sent on Monday to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. More from Deadline Andrew Tate Hits TikTok & Zuckerberg's Meta For $100M For Kicking Ex-Kickboxer Off Platforms Back In 2022: "It's Good Vs Evil," Accused Rapist Insists John Oliver On Hypocrisy Of Trump D.C. Takeover: "If Anyone Is Making Things Too Dadgum Dangerous In This Country, It's Probably F--ing Him Right Now" HBO Aims To Loomerize Laura Loomer Over Deposition Leak & Posts In Bill Maher Defamation Suit Schiff is seeking details on the FCC's discussions related to editorial decisions and content at CBS. As part of the merger approval, Skydance committed to a diversity of viewpoints, while ending diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Schiff wrote, 'As you are aware, the FCC's authority – and its limits – are rooted in the First Amendment. The Communications Act of 1934 explicitly declares that nothing in the statute 'shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the [broadcast] communications or signals transmitted by any [broadcast] station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of [over-the-air] broadcast communication.' As such, the FCC does not have the authority to dictate editorial content, punish perceived political bias, compel or silence specific viewpoints, or reward parties on the basis of efforts to garner favor with elected officials.' Schiff has previously raised questions about the timing of CBS' decision to cancel The Late Show iwth Stephen Colbert, coming just before the FCC gave its approval of the transaction. Schiff was a guest on the show the night that the cancellation decision was announced. CBS has said that the show was dropped for financial reasons. In announcing its settlement of Trump's $16 million lawsuit against the network, Paramount Global said that it was unrelated to the FCC merger review. But Democratic senators have raised the prospect that anti-bribery laws may have been broken. Trump's lawsuit was over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris, his campaign rival last year. Skydance officials say that they have complied with laws as they sought merger approval. Schiff also cited Trump's claims that the settlement also included $16 million in commitments from the newly merged company to run public service announcements. Trump later wrote that the figure was $20 million, although he said that it was an amount they 'anticipate.' Schiff wrote, 'The FCC's recent actions are especially troubling considering President Trump's history of disparaging the press and undermining the protections afforded to them by the Constitution. He has repeatedly accused news agencies of bias or unfair reporting when the coverage is unfavorable to him, most recently stating that licenses for networks that he views as 'political pawns for the Democrat Party…could, and should be revoked!' In a blatant example of Trump's political interference in the FCC's regulatory review, the President boasted on Truth Social about his 'BIG AND IMPORTANT WIN' against Paramount just two days before the Commission's approval of the company's merger with Skydance. The President went on to name several other respected media outlets, announcing he was putting them 'ON NOTICE' and signaling his intent to continue weaponizing litigation and regulatory review as a tool to intimidate the press across the media landscape.' Among Schiff's questions are, 'What First Amendment analysis did the Commission conduct prior to accepting Skydance's commitment to achieve editorial 'balance'?' and 'Did the FCC have any knowledge of, or communications with, the White House, Skydance, or Paramount concerning a potential $20 million public service announcement or advertising commitment connected to the settlement or merger approval?' In seeking the information, Schiff cited Congress' 'constitutional obligation to perform oversight of regulatory agencies.' He is requesting answers to a series of questions from the FCC by Aug. 25. An FCC spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Best of Deadline Everything We Know About 'Nobody Wants This' Season 2 So Far 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Emmys, Oscars, Grammys & More Everything We Know About Prime Video's 'Legally Blonde' Prequel Series 'Elle'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court appeal reignites push to repeal Ohio's same-sex marriage ban
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — A push to repeal Ohio's same-sex marriage ban is gaining urgency after former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis asked the U.S. Supreme Court last week to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage. Davis, who gained national attention a decade ago for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is appealing a ruling that requires her to pay $360,000 in damages and legal fees to a couple she denied in 2015. In her petition to the high court, Davis argues the First Amendment shields her from personal liability and is calling on the justices to overturn Obergefell, which she claims was 'egregiously wrong' and a threat to religious freedom. Out in Ohio: 10 years after Obergefell, advocates warn marriage equality still at risk 'This flawed opinion has produced disastrous results,' her legal filing states, 'leaving individuals like Davis finding it increasingly difficult to participate in society.' This marks the first time since Obergefell was decided that the Supreme Court has been formally asked to reconsider marriage equality. The move has alarmed LGBTQ+ advocates in Ohio, where a 2004 constitutional amendment still defines marriage as only between a man and a woman — language that remains on the books despite being unenforceable under current law. A preemptive strike Ohio Equal Rights, a grassroots organization, is collecting signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the 2026 ballot that would repeal the state's same-sex marriage ban. 'Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides this time, attacks on our rights will keep coming,' the group said in a statement. 'We're fighting to repeal Ohio's gay marriage ban so marriage is protected here — no matter what happens federally.' Lis Regula, executive co-chair of Ohio Equal Rights, said in a previous NBC4 interview that the effort is about ensuring state protections remain in place, especially if Obergefell is overturned. Ramaswamy sets Ohio record with $9 million for governor's race; Acton at $1.4 million 'Just in case Obergefell falls, we want to not have that trigger language in Ohio's constitution anymore,' Regula told NBC4 in a previous interview. 'It's not right, knowing all the advantages and all the privileges that come with being able to be married to someone, that marriage should be only for certain people and not for others.' The concern is not unfounded. In 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that the court should also reconsider other substantive due process rulings, including Obergefell. Legislative backing Democratic lawmakers at the Ohio Statehouse have echoed these concerns. In June, they introduced a resolution to place their own marriage equality amendment on the 2026 ballot. A similar effort last year, to align Ohio law with the federal protections of Obergefell, stalled in committee. Ballot strategy and hurdles Ohio Equal Rights is also collecting signatures for a separate amendment that would add broad anti-discrimination protections to the state constitution — covering race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and more. The group initially sought to combine the marriage and discrimination initiatives into one amendment, but the Ohio Ballot Board voted in July to split them into two. Ohio bill inspired by leaf blower theft aims to revise state's definition of burglary To qualify for the 2026 ballot, the organization must gather signatures from at least 10% of voters from the last gubernatorial election, spread across at least 44 of Ohio's 88 counties. All signatures must be submitted and verified by the secretary of state at least 65 days before the election. If successful, the proposals would follow in the footsteps of other constitutional amendments in recent years. In 2023, voters approved Issues 1 and 2, establishing the right to abortion and legalizing recreational marijuana, each with around 57% support. Another amendment, Issue 1 in 2024, aimed at changing how political districts are drawn, failed by a 53-47 margin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Florida First Amendment clash: State threatens school board after chair's Hulk Hogan post
A Sunshine State school board chair's callous remarks about a dead professional wrestler have ignited the latest First Amendment flashpoint in Florida. Alachua County's school board amended its public comment rules in their Aug. 13 workshop meeting, essentially getting a free speech refresher course on what is and is not allowable conduct in meetings and in social media. This follows outrage from state officials about a July 31 school board meeting, where a public commenter was nearly removed from a meeting after insulting school board chair Sarah Rockwell. She faced criticism from Republicans over a now-deleted social media comment about the late professional wrestler and Donald Trump supporter Hulk Hogan: "Oh did Hulk die? I didn't even know. Good. One less MAGA in the world." Previous coverage: Alachua County School Board holds workshop to reflect on new public comment policy On Aug. 1, Education Commissioner Anastasios "Stasi" Kamoutsas sent a letter to Rockwell, who has since apologized, noting her "unprofessional conduct" and "disparaging comments about the death of a conservative figure." He went on to say she violated state law and the First Amendment at the recent board meeting by "sitting idly by" while police were directed to remove someone "for expressing a conservative viewpoint." He said he recommended the State Board of Education to withhold "an amount equal to the salaries of all board members" and that he won't permit her to hold a Florida teaching certificate. "Let me be clear, by publicly humiliating this parent for his views, you've created a chilling effect on all parents with similar beliefs," Kamoutsas wrote in the letter. "You've signaled that certain viewpoints are not welcome in Alachua County Public Schools, and that should alarm every family in the district." Speakers expected to 'demonstrate proper decorum' Rockwell is expected to go before State Board of Education, who oversees school districts across the state, on Aug. 20. It's also the day after Alachua County school board's first scheduled meeting under its newly adopted public comment rules. They require speakers to fill out a form, underscoring that speakers are "expected to demonstrate proper decorum." Alachua County's circumstance is more nuanced when it comes to the First Amendment and its protections, since this case is centrally focused on social media comments and the rules on public comment. At the Aug. 13 workshop meeting, board members were told that the public comment policy must be consistently applied regardless of viewpoint. To adhere to the First Amendment, offensive language toward a board member is not enough to restrict comment, since it had to be "obscene" or threatening to be unprotected speech. But what is important is for the school board members to consistently apply rules to each person in a forum, said Lyrissa Lidsky, a First Amendment law professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. Rockwell's comments caused a "tremendous amount of pushback," but the First Amendment protects people who counter speech as long as it follows the rules of the forum where it's said: "The key thing here is viewpoint neutral," Lidsky said. In terms of social media, the school board's attorney David Delaney instructed members they may post opinions on their own social media accounts. Posts should include disclaimers that the account is personal and say, "The views expressed here are strictly my own." In this case, the comment came from Rockwell's personal Facebook account. The reason why that's important under the First Amendment is because accounts of public officials may also be viewed as public forums. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that restricting a constituent's ability to interact on a forum, by blocking negative comments and allowing positive ones, could be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, according to the Freedom Forum. Related: First Amendment questions after FAMU limits online comments on Marva Johnson This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Hulk Hogan and a First Amendment clash between Florida, school board Solve the daily Crossword
