Florida Libel Reform Bills Die in Legislature

I wrote about the highest-profile feature of the bills—the attempt to get New York Times v. Sullivan overruled—earlier this month, and I was meaning to write about the other portions, but I just learned (see Florida Politics [Jacob Ogles], posted last Friday) that the bills have been shelved:

Sponsors in both the House and Senate confirm they have ceased negotiations on the measure. The legislation, which drew criticism from media voices across the political spectrum, would have lowered the threshold to sue media outlets and others.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Jason Brodeur, a Lake Mary Republican, in the Senate (SB 1220) and Rep. Alex Andrade, a Pensacola Republican, in the House (HB 991).

The legislation advanced through the House Civil Justice Subcommittee but appeared stalled awaiting a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Sources earlier this week told Florida Politics the bill was "dead" in the House.

The Senate bill, after clearing a Senate Judiciary vote, was scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Rules Committee on three separate occasions, but was temporarily postponed each time. Senators did not take up the bill at a hearing on Wednesday.

Now, Senate sources say negotiations between the chambers have ceased….

There were a "wide variety" of differences between the House and Senate, and the legislation is now being shelved for the duration of the Legislative Session.

Thanks to the Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) MediaLawDaily for the pointer.

Comments

[David Nieporent]

Exhibit #4,215,937 in the "Why you should pay attention to, but not hyperventilate about, random state legislative proposals" file.

[Nige]

'When people who you who they are...' etc.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaking of reform . . .

drip . . . drip . . . drip . . .

This site permits just two links, so the Guardian report that Justice Thomas' generous benefactor Harlan Crow did have business before the Court -- despite Justice Thomas' contrary claim -- must be found without direct assistance.

Don't worry, modern Americans. As has become customary, the American mainstream will clean up the conservatives' mess.

[David Nieporent]

The Gorsuch story is completely wrong, as the Politico authors did not understand the legal issues.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Or perhaps they made the mistake of figuring the form should be completed as indicated, even by Supreme Court Justices?

Anyway, the Federalist seems to agree with your assessment. Perhaps someone will provide a persuasive, reliable analysis.

[David Nieporent]

The form was completed as indicated. The Politico writer did not understand that membership in an LLC is not ownership of the LLC's property. Gorsuch did not own the property, and therefore there was no opportunity for him to disclose its sale. Gorsuch did own (part of) the LLC, and therefore (correctly) reported the proceeds from its dissolution, but did not report any counterparty because there wasn't one.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like a how-to manual for influence-peddlers and influence-purchasers. Ginni and Clarence Thomas must be taking notes, high-fiving, and making reservations.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, the breathless hot take crowd seems to envision judicial disclosure/recusal issues as some weird variant of the Kevin Bacon game.

[Sarcastr0]

DMN - that's what I came here for. It seemed too kind to my priors to be as written.

Is there an explication you can point me to? Gorsuch didn't fill in the identity of the purchaser, who later was counsel of record in a buncha SOCTUS cases.

Is the issue chief executive as individual versus chief executive as standing for the organization?

Certainly my legal ethics class did not go so deep.

[Life of Brian]

Presuming sincerity, it appears Politico's something's-fishy hit piece lured you way too far into the weeds. The unaddressed threshold question appears to me to be whether there's any obligation at all for a federal judge to disclose transaction-level detail of a passive real estate investment LLC in which a judge holds an ownership interest, regardless of the identity/position/whatever else of the purchaser from the LLC. Gorsuch disclosed income from his LLC share itself, presumably from its wind-down following the sale of the property. That all appears consistent with section 315.10 of the rules here -- let me know if you think otherwise.

As a cross-check, after several column-inches of table pounding, one of Politico's talking heads quietly admitted that "more facts are needed to distinguish whether it’s a disclosure omission or violation" (the first of which I'm reading as a through-gritted teeth rendition of "something not actually wrong and thus would make this entire exercise a huge waste of everyone's bandwidth").

[Sarcastr0]

Didn't read Politico, but I'm sure I'm too in the weeds; as I said it's too good to be true so it's probably not.

My cursory reading of the rules you link says that's right. So Gorsuch is off the hook, at least formally. (Though I do want to think about whether money from a law firm CEO is a conflict worth tracking as a matter of policy, his reporting seems legit)

But then I have a policy question - I don't understand why the rules are like that...who cares about the amount of money gained, when the real rub is who that money came from? Like, what is the purpose of the rule as written?

[Life of Brian]

who cares about the amount of money gained, when the real rub is who that money came from?

That seems backwards to me. The amount of money seems like a more objective data point than its source in measuring whether a transaction was arms-length, which I have to think is the primary policy goal for rules like this.

And I doubt your source of choice dwelled on this particular facet at all, but having looked back through the history of the property and the LLC's 12-year ownership of it, it looks likely to me that it ended up taking a loss on the end-to-end deal, consistent with Gorsuch's reporting of no gain. And the final $1.825M sale price was actually $125k less than the final asking price, which itself was over 20% down from the initial list price. Oh, and 6 years later the property is estimated at over $3M. That sure does feel a lot more consistent with the chief executive of a multinational law firm making a shrewd deal than it does some sort of ham-fisted attempt at bribery of a 20% stakeholder.

[Sarcastr0]

Between you and DMN I’m well satisfied on both the requirements, and the policy.

It’s been too long since law school and the whole arms length characterization of a sale. Or maybe I never learned it; I never took sales and secured transactions.

No regrets there; just wish I’d taken remedies. But then I'm into the law at this point for interest, not professional reasons.

[David Nieporent]

Is there an explication you can point me to? Gorsuch didn’t fill in the identity of the purchaser, who later was counsel of record in a buncha SOCTUS cases.

Here's a good Twitter thread that lays it out:

https://twitter.com/CrownMaybe/status/1650848856127488008

[David Nieporent]

And just to add, there are three main ways this is distinguished from the Thomas situation:

1) Unlike Thomas, Gorsuch correctly disclosed what he was supposed to, when and how he was supposed to.
2) Unlike Thomas, there's no allegation of any gifts.
3) Unlike Thomas, there's no ongoing relationship (i.e., Crow being Thomas's mother's landlord).

Gorsuch did not actually do business with the guy, but even if he did, there's no principle of judicial ethics that requires recusal because one previously entered into a one-time arm's length business transaction with the other side's attorney.

Obviously all of my comments are provisional; if it turns out that the guy paid far above market value for the property, then we need to step back and look at the situation differently. (Though that seems like a pretty far-fetched scenario.)

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that's how I was reading the tea leaves (with the exception of wondering why the sale date was recorded as the last day of the year post LLC dissolution -- nice to have that cleared up).

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No one cares.

[Nelson]

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaking of reform . . . most Americans support expansion of the Supreme Court.

I expect that support to increase . . . until expansion addresses the problem.

[Ben_]

That’s the legislative process. Looking forward to a revised version of this that might end up passing.

News media shouldn’t get to casually libel and defame using phony anonymous sources.