Judge Kenneth Karas of the Southern District of New York handed down a ruling on Friday in Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. v. Legislative Correspondents’ Association, addressing the claims brought by Elena Sassower, who proceeded without counsel, alongside the Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. The action named thirty-four media outlets and journalism-related entities as defendants, accusing them of coordinating to perpetrate “journalistic fraud,” showing “institutional reckless disregard for truth,” and defrauding purchasers, donors, and taxpayers in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The court did not accept these assertions. As an excerpt from the decision shows, the Center for Judicial Accountability argues that the defendants’ alleged breach of First Amendment responsibilities and journalistic ethics by the press—covering most of the defendants named in the action—has meant that CJA’s extensive, decades-long efforts have produced no measurable, corruption-eradicating changes. The argument posits that even a modest adherence to such professional standards could have triggered sweeping reforms; nonetheless, the court found the claimed injury too remote and speculative to constitute a legally cognizable injury in fact.
In addition, the center contends that the nearly complete suppression of any reporting on its activities, aside from terms that minimized or denigrated its work, deprived it of public visibility and the benefits that flow from it. Yet the court noted that the free-speech guarantee does not include a right to compel journalists or other citizens to listen to particular viewpoints, nor does it grant a right to compel a publisher to publish those views. Consequently, because CJA lacks a legally cognizable right to favorable press coverage of its work, it cannot establish an injury-in-fact on this basis.
The plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of the People of the State of New York, claiming that residents have been left “clueless” by their “free press” about how their elected and appointed constitutional officers in the three branches of government have flagrantly violated oaths of office, the state Constitution, laws, and rules, stealing taxpayers’ money and enabling the enactment of policies—without due legislative process and through fraud, including in relation to elections.
However, Sassower’s pro se status prevents her from litigating on anyone’s behalf other than her own. Moreover, the plaintiffs cannot rely on harm suffered by the general public to establish standing because the injury in fact must be particularized to the individuals who bring the suit.
Further, as discussed above, the plaintiffs do not possess a legally enforceable right—under the First Amendment or any other authority—to compel Defendants to report on topics of their choosing, so they cannot claim injury to themselves or to the public on that basis.
And an excerpt addressing Sassower’s more individualized claim:
First, the plaintiffs lack a legally cognizable injury in fact, which is required to establish standing. Regarding her claimed injury, Sassower asserts that “the corruption of New York’s judiciary … and the complicity of the press, including many of the Defendants, destroyed the lives and professional careers of her parents,” which in turn “destroyed and derailed [Sassower’s] own life and career, starting from her childhood,” and she is presently 69 years old.
Nevertheless, any harm suffered by Sassower’s parents does not grant her standing to sue, because a constitutional violation is regarded as entirely personal to the direct victim, and thus no action may lie for collateral injuries allegedly suffered personally by family members. Without providing details about how Defendants’ conduct “destroyed and derailed” her own life and career, Sassower has not alleged enough facts to plausibly claim a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact.
