Connect with us

Politics

Floyd Abrams: GOP-backed Fla. bill targeting the press is ‘plainly inconsistent with’ First Amendment

LGBTQ groups have criticized measure

Published

on

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (Screen capture via YouTube)

A bill by Florida Republicans that would relax the standards required for public officials to sue journalists and media organizations for libel is “plainly inconsistent with the First Amendment” according to the acclaimed attorney and constitutional law expert Floyd Abrams.

“The statute is a frontal attack” on the U.S. Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of the principles “governing First Amendment libel law as it currently exists,” Abrams told the Washington Blade by phone on Wednesday.

Abrams has represented parties in litigation before the Supreme Court more than a dozen times in some of the most important and high-profile First Amendment cases brought over the last 50 years, which has led to landmark rulings including on matters governing press freedoms.

Abrams is senior counsel at Cahill Gordon and Reindel, the multinational law firm where he has worked since 1963. He is widely considered among the country’s preeminent litigators and experts in constitutional law and was described by the late diplomat and U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) as “the most significant First Amendment lawyer of our age.”

With this Florida statute, Abrams said it appears Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and his conservative allies in the legislature are making “an effort to come up with something which will lead the Supreme Court to take another look” at its 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which established that the First Amendment confers certain protections for the press against libel lawsuits by public figures.

The ruling, reaffirmed and developed in subsequent cases over the years, acts as a bulwark preventing powerful public figures including elected officials from weaponizing lawsuits or the threat of litigation to silence or censor reporters and news organizations.  

DeSantis and Florida’s GOP legislators are hardly out of step with leaders in the Republican Party including former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly pledged to change the libel laws so he could more easily sue media companies.

When Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 vice presidential candidate, sued the New York Times for libel in 2016, the paper wrote that advocates for weakening the press’ protections against libel lawsuits were “more emboldened now than at any point” since the Sullivan case. They have ideological allies in the right-wing legal establishment, too: In 2021, conservative Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch expressed an interest in revisiting the court’s ruling in Sullivan.

Supreme Court unlikely to revisit longstanding approach to First Amendment, libel law

Abrams said if the Florida bill is signed into law, given that “virtually any entity, which reports the news would be imperiled by this statute,” he can envision legal challenges from a variety of entities, from groups like the “ACLU to the Reporters’ Committee [for Freedom of the Press] to organizations of journalists to newspapers.” Litigation over the law’s constitutionality could, of course, reach the Supreme Court.

At the same time, Abrams said he doubts there is much appetite among the justices to abrogate or weaken the decades-old ruling in Sullivan, which stipulates that to bring a successful libel case against the press, public officials must first prove the offending material was defamatory and then show it was published with “actual malice,” either with the knowledge that it was false or with “reckless disregard” for whether it was true.

“I would be very surprised if Chief Justice Roberts is in favor of revisiting New York Times against Sullivan because he has been a strong First Amendment defender,” Abrams said, and based on “Justice Kavanaugh’s opinions when he was on the Court of Appeals, I would be surprised if he is prepared to challenge” Sullivan.

Abrams conceded “there may be more reasons to think that one or more conservative jurists” on the Supreme Court could be convinced to join Thomas and Gorsuch’s calls to reconsider libel protections for the press. Working against this effort, however, is the extent to which the Florida statute is inconsistent from the court’s analysis of the relevant legal questions, Abrams said.

Examples, he said, include: (1) the proposal’s narrowing of the parameters used to define certain plaintiffs as “public figures” for purposes of First Amendment libel law, a distinction that carries a higher burden of proof than that which is required of private citizens suing members of the press; (2) its treatment of information attributed to anonymous sources as presumably false, a finding that plaintiffs claiming defamation would otherwise be required to prove; and (3) its characterization as inherently defamatory any accusations published by the press of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The statute’s presumption that material attributed to anonymous sources is false would undermine the method by which the courts evaluate libel claims brought by public figures, Abrams said: “The Supreme Court has certainly made clear that the legal test requires the party suing to demonstrate the newspaper [or] journalist didn’t believe what he or she was saying.”

Put differently, Abrams said, the analysis turns on the defendant’s state of mind “as a basis for determining if the alleged libel of a public figure is actionable.”

Therefore, Abrams said, to “have a flat presumption that any use of confidential sources will be held against the journalist is inconsistent” with the type of claims that might “lead the Supreme Court to take another look at the law” established with Sullivan.

Censoring criticism of anti-LGBTQ discrimination

Likewise with the legislation’s provision that the press’s accusation of discrimination by a public official would constitute prima facie evidence of defamation, Abrams said “The Supreme Court has said more than once, and often in the voice of conservative jurists, that such speech is protected by the First Amendment.”

Florida’s statute goes even further, however. Per the substantial truth doctrine, a defendant accused of defamation can avoid legal liability by showing that the gist of the material at issue in the complaint was true. Under the proposed bill, a journalist who is sued for publishing accusations of discrimination (now considered inherently defamatory) may not cite as evidence of their truth (or substantial truth) the public official’s membership in any religious or scientific organization — even if that organization has a documented pattern and practice of discrimination, or well-known views that are unambiguously sexist, racist or anti-LGBTQ.  

The bill’s apparent effort to censor media coverage of discrimination by public officials raised red flags with LGBTQ groups like GLAAD, whose president, Sarah Kate Ellis said, in a statement shared with the Blade on Wednesday: “Those spewing harmful and inaccurate words do not have the support for their dangerous rhetoric and policies, and they’re rightfully afraid they’ll be held accountable by voters and a free press that accurately reports on efforts to scapegoat and target vulnerable people.”

“This bill is another futile attack on LGBTQ Floridians, a sign of full-blown panic against a rising tide of acceptance for LGBTQ people and for the full equality of women, people of color and queer people of color,” Ellis said.  

Jon Harris Maurer, an attorney who serves as public policy director for Equality Florida, the state’s largest LGBTQ advocacy organization, told the Blade by phone on Thursday that based on the alignment of DeSantis and Republicans in the legislature, chances are the bill will be signed into law.

Maurer said Florida’s Republican lawmakers, with supermajorities in both chambers, “have made clear they are prioritizing Gov. DeSantis’ legislative agenda.” At, or at least near, the top of that agenda is the state’s proposal to weaken libel protections for journalists, Maurer said, noting DeSantis’ decision to convene a recent roundtable discussion on the matter where speakers explained their reasons for wanting the Supreme Court to revisit Sullivan.

Other recent high-priority policy items for DeSantis and his allies have focused on using “the LGBTQ community to score political points with a far-right presidential primary base,” Maurer said. Florida’s governor, state lawmakers, or other officials might find the press coverage of these matters unflattering, Maurer said, but that hardly means the coverage is false or even defamatory.

So, the proposal to relax the standards required for public officials to sue reporters and media organizations for libel “is intended to have a chilling effect on media, particularly media that would be critical of Gov. DeSantis and those who share his positions,” Maurer said.

Maurer agreed with Abrams that the bill’s proponents likely have their sights set on the Supreme Court — and that the proposal, as currently written, is totally inconsistent with the court’s treatment of First Amendment libel law.

If the bill is signed into law and litigation over its constitutionality reaches the Supreme Court, Maurer declined to speculate what the outcome might be. The court’s conservative justices have scrapped longstanding precedent in other recent cases, he said, noting last year’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that revoked the constitutional right to abortion first established in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.

Removing protections for confidentiality of anonymous sources

Particularly in circumstances that raise national security concerns, the U.S. government has sometimes sought to prevent news organizations from publishing sensitive information in their possession or issued subpoenas demanding that journalists reveal the identities of the confidential sources who leaked it to them.

In 1971, Abrams successfully represented the Times before the Supreme Court in a landmark First Amendment case challenging the Nixon administration’s claims of executive authority to suppress the paper’s publication of confidential documents. The court’s ruling allowed the Times and other organizations to publish the material, known as the Pentagon Papers, which revealed the Johnson administration had “systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress” about America’s political and military involvement in Vietnam.

The government employee responsible for providing the documents to the Times was charged with espionage, though the charges were later dismissed.

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes that the First Amendment does not protect reporters from being called to testify before grand juries, but the government must “convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest.”

The decision was cited by Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in his 2004 memorandum opinion rejecting a motion to rescind grand jury subpoenas issued to two reporters, one represented by Abrams, in connection with criminal investigations of leaks that had revealed the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson (in what became known as the “Plame affair”).

Abrams’ client, who had not published a story about Plame but learned she was working as a covert CIA operative through a confidential government source, served several months in jail for her refusal to reveal his identity as demanded by the subpoena.

Some courts have upheld the concept that journalists have a constitutional right to conceal the identities of their sources, and some states and jurisdictions have codified these rulings with so-called “shield laws,” which vary in the extent of their protections afforded to members of the press.

Florida’s proposed statute, in addition to presuming that published information attributed to anonymous sources is false, would revoke the state’s shield laws that protect journalists’ right to keep their identities confidential.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

2026 Midterm Elections

Annie Andrews denounces trans athletes after Trump targets her

President used anti-trans slur to describe SC Senate candidate

Published

on

Annie Andrews, who is running for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina, has come out against transgender athletes on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity after President Donald Trump used a transphobic slur to describe her. (Bigstock photo)

Days after President Donald Trump called Annie Andrews, the cisgender Democratic nominee for South Carolina’s U.S. Senate seat, an anti-transgender slur on social media, Andrews came out against transgender girls and women participating in sports.

Trump called Andrews a “trannie” on Truth Social while attempting to garner support for her opponent, U.S. Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.), the incumbent seeking reelection in South Carolina.

After the president’s use of the slur was widely reported, the incident provided an opportunity for Andrews to explain her position on the ongoing trans debate that has shaped political discourse in the 2020s, despite trans people making up only 1 percent of the U.S. population, according to the Williams Institute.

She used the opportunity to denounce trans rights and pointed out that, as a physician, she had never performed gender-affirming surgery on minors.

“I want you to hear me loud and clear: I don’t support biological men playing women’s sports, and I don’t support and haven’t ever performed gender surgery for minors,” Andrews said in a political ad.

Despite these recent developments, Andrews has previously voiced support for trans South Carolinians. In 2022, she posted on her X account, criticizing the Save Women’s Sports Act, which was signed into law by Republican Gov. Henry McMaster and restricts trans girls from participating on girls’ sports teams.

“This is shameful legislation that does nothing to protect or support women or children in SC. In fact, it is actively harmful. I will always support trans youth,” Andrews wrote in after the legislation passed.

The Washington Blade reached out to Andrew’s campaign about the comments, and asked if she supports trans rights but did not receive a response.

Continue Reading

2026 Midterm Elections

On Republican Long Island, gay Democrat Chris Gallant bets on public service over politics

Chris Gallant sat down with the Blade ahead of his race for NY’s 1st congressional district.

Published

on

Chris Gallant (Photo courtesy of Chris Gallant for Congress)

New York’s Long Island, which is just 50 miles from the Stonewall Inn, is a reliably red enclave where President Trump won easily in 2024.

Chris Gallant, an openly gay Democrat running for New York’s 1st Congressional District, which includes Nassau and Suffolk counties, is trying to capitalize on what he sees as growing frustration with the Republican Party and its ability to deliver for everyday Americans.

The Blade sat down with Gallant to discuss his move from civil servant to the fight for public office, how he has been personally impacted by the changes from the Trump administration, and the recent release of photos from his past that have brought the national spotlight his way.

Gallant has a long record of public service that, on paper, would make him an unconventional but compelling candidate for a heavily Republican district. His résumé includes New York Army National Guard service that began when he was 17, multiple overseas deployments, including multiple tours in Kuwait, work as an FAA air traffic controller, union leadership and service as a volunteer firefighter.

That record of service is central to how Gallant describes himself — particularly as he navigates the unusual combination of being an openly gay candidate, a military veteran, and a Democrat running in a district where Republicans have historically held the advantage.

“My fiancé and I both serve in the military and we built our relationship through trust, timing, and a lot of miles between us,” his campaign website says, highlighting the idea of family values that has become a central part of winning the area. “I’ve been openly gay in the military since just after ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ended, and I’ve learned to speak plainly, hold the line, and back up what I say. I’ve also learned how to listen — and how to bring people with very different views to the table and actually make progress.”

Gallant said that record, rather than his sexual orientation, is what should define his candidacy.

“I think who I am as a person is an asset,” he told the Blade when asked if his sexuality has played any role in his decision to run. “I’m not running because I’m gay. I’m running, and,’Oh, I’m gay.’ It’s part of my identity. It’s just a part of who I am. But it’s not necessarily on the table because that shouldn’t make a difference on how I’m going to respond in Congress or how I’m going to run into a burning building. I don’t think those things necessarily matter so much.”

For Gallant, the campaign is ultimately about something broader than identity politics. He said he is running because he wants to restore Americans’ confidence in a government that he says has become less about its people and more about the wealthy leaders in charge.

“I’ve always said that part of the reason why I am running for Congress is because I want to restore faith in our government,” he said. “We’re all drastically exhausted with what’s going on in this world, and particularly with Donald Trump being in office, [his] type of politics, and the way he works, essentially. When Biden got into office after Trump won, it was like the release of a pressure cooker… the pressure cooker is just even worse now this second time around.”

He also explained that his experience working inside the federal government has shaped how he believes Washington should approach its problems. Gallant pointed specifically to the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the size of government and the role of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), arguing that cutting government spending should not mean indiscriminate cuts.

“I understand that we as a nation need to save money, or at least fix the budget or balance it. We are getting further and further in debt … The budget is always a huge issue and something that we definitely 100% need to fix. But we need to do it with experts and, you know, attack these issues with a scalpel, not a chainsaw.”

The chainsaw Gallant mentioned is a clear reference to controversial Trump supporter Elon Musk, who announced he would be heading the highly politicized DOGE agency, where he, the first-ever trillionaire, brandished a shiny chainsaw symbolic of them cutting government spending with no regard for the impact on everyday Americans.

That philosophy, of scalpel over chainsaw, is also part of Gallant’s argument to voters who may be more accustomed to voting Republican. He does not present himself as a traditional politician, but rather as someone whose career outside politics could be an asset in Congress.

“I’m not a politician. This is my first foray into politics, and I think that’s what our politics need. We need fresh new faces, not career politicians. Someone who has brand new ideas, not tainted by politics. So I would say, give me the opportunity to prove myself, because, you know, until I actually get there and I can actually do a job, we won’t know.”

Gallant also shared signs that the political landscape on Long Island may be shifting. He pointed to gains Democrats made across the district last November and said economic concerns could further erode Republican support.

“Last November, in this district we [Democrats] gained 13 and 14 points across the district..And this district lost by 10 points last year. So even just in one year, you can tell that there’s a difference.”

The swapping of support from the Republican side to Democratic reflects the real concern voters have about the economy — impacted by the war in Iran, tariffs, and growing inflation.

“People are feeling it here in their pockets. The cost of living here on Long Island is already high, and things are just getting worse. There’s a lot of promises that were made with this administration that weren’t kept.”

Gallant said that frustration has directly translated into support from some voters who previously backed President Donald Trump.

“I know a lot of people who have voted for Donald Trump that have my lawn sign on their front lawn today. If that’s the change that they’re looking for, I’m going to provide it.”

But Gallant’s campaign has been complicated by a very different kind of political issue: the publication of photos from his past that have become a national story.

The photos, which include pictures of Gallant wearing various fetish gear for Mr. S Leather — including a harness and a collar — were shared with the New York Post.

Gallant has consistently rejected the idea that he should be ashamed of the images or that they undermine his qualifications for public office since their Sept. 13 publication. Instead, he has argued that his record of service should be considered alongside a private chapter of his life from 15 years ago.

“I mean, look, I’m totally not ashamed of who I am as a person. Those pictures were taken in my private life. I can still run into a burning building faster than most people. I can still fly a helicopter. And those are from 15 years ago, right? I built an entire life based around my commitment to the military and the Army National Guard.”

Rather than allowing the controversy to define him, Gallant said he hopes it can become part of a broader conversation about privacy and the consequences of living in a digital age — and indicated that this sort of scenario would become something semi-regular for those who grew up with technology.

“The reality is that we live in a digital age.This is what our generation is going to be stuck with. I laugh all the time because this is the reason why Congress and the Senate are about to die in their chairs. They didn’t have cameras and pictures and photos like that.”

“If I have to be the person to wave the banner now to fight and advocate for not only our community but anybody that could be put in this situation, that realizes now that we’re living in a digital age and this is what the future is going to be. It’s, you know, everything’s left online now.”

That argument extends beyond his own campaign. Gallant said he worries that the prospect of having a digital footprint scrutinized could discourage highly qualified and passionate potential public servants from seeking office.

“I understand that getting into public life means that the rest of your life becomes public. I get it, I do. But I also feel bad because there’s a lot of good people out there wanting to do a job in the public world, and they’re just afraid of what their digital footprint might have on them or might—what might exist because we’ve done things when we’re 12 or 15, or 20, or 30, or whatever.”

“I think living in this digital world, I would love to advocate for people to say, ‘How do we prevent some of these things from coming out into the public view so people can still maintain some kind of a private life?’”

For an openly gay candidate, the issue also carries a particular significance. Gallant said his experience has made him more interested in advocating for other LGBTQ people who may hesitate to enter public life because of what could eventually surface online.

His own LGBTQ policy priorities are relatively focused. He said adding further protections for same-sex marriage in federal law would be one of the issues he would want to pursue if elected, particularly as questions about the Supreme Court’s future approach to marriage equality continue to loom.

“My partner, who’s my fiancé, is currently deployed. We got engaged before he left in December because if the question came up to the Supreme Court– whether gay marriage was going to be a thing– we had to question whether, when he got back from deployment after Christmas this year, whether we were actually going to be able to legally get married.”

“I mean, these are questions that shouldn’t even be questions anymore. So if we can put something like [codifying same-sex marriage] into law, where it’s just not a Supreme Court decision and it can get overturned, like Roe v. Wade, then let’s do it.”

Gallant’s opponent, Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), is the two-term incumbent and has a mixed record on LGBTQ rights. LaLota has been vocal in his opposition to overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that established the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but he has also been outspoken in his opposition to transgender rights. He co-sponsored and voted for H.R. 28, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which would restrict participation in women’s sports based on sex assigned at birth rather than gender identity.

Gallant, on the other hand, has few official positions on LGBTQ issues but assured the Blade that, if elected, he would become “an advocate, particularly for the LGBTQ community.”

He also said he believes same-sex marriage should be codified into law and that nondiscrimination protections should be expanded. “I would definitely be pushing no discrimination against anyone for any reason — and that should not have any place in any workplace — especially on the federal government level.”

For Gallant, however, LGBTQ rights are only one part of a broader platform centered on public service, affordability and restoring trust in government.

He repeatedly returned to the idea that a member of Congress should be accessible to the people they represent — something he believes his experience holding town halls and working directly with members of his community demonstrates.

“I always find that a record of service and showing up every day at work and in our communities is what’s going to be key and important. And I think that’s what a representative needs to do. As a representative you’re supposed to represent and work with the people that elect you to office. And so that’s what I’m going to make sure I start today.”

Current prediction markets give LaLota a significant advantage over his challenger, with the incumbent holding an 81 percent chance of winning compared with Gallant’s 19 percent.

Continue Reading

2026 Midterm Elections

Trump uses anti-trans slur against Democratic Senate candidate

President mocked Annie Andrews

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump used an anti-trans slur against Democratic South Carolina Senate candidate Annie Andrews on Monday as he sought to rally support for Republicans in the state’s Senate race.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump attacked Andrews three times, referring to her as “trannie” while promoting U.S. Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.)’s campaign.

Andrews is running against Graham for a Senate seat in the solidly Republican state.

Earlier this year, Graham was specially appointed to the seat following the death of her brother, Lindsey Graham, who represented South Carolina in the Senate from 2003 to 2026.

Andrews, the Democratic nominee from the state, is a pediatrician that lives in Charleston with her three children. She told NBC News that she will “work with anyone to put South Carolina first.”

“As a mom and a pediatrician, I’m in this race to fight for my patients, my three kids, and South Carolina,” Andrews said, adding that “lowering costs and making life better for families across our state is going to take all of us working together.”

Andrews used the attention from the president’s attack to emphasize what she described as a focus on policy issues rather than the culture wars that have dominated much of the political debate.

“If you care more about your bills than the politics in Washington, this campaign is for you,” she added.

Trump’s remarks have drawn criticism from leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) condemned Trump’s words Monday night on social media, calling his attacks on Andrews “despicable.”

“Annie Andrews is a mom and pediatrician who’s always put her community first — and she’s exactly who South Carolina needs representing them in the Senate,” Schumer said on X.

Former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, a Republican, also criticized the president’s attack on Andrews, urging voters to “reject politics based on division and hate.”

“This is abhorrent. Elections don’t have to be about cruelty and lies. South Carolina deserves better,” Beasley wrote Monday night on X.

South Carolina has not elected a Democratic senator in nearly three decades.

Andrews’s campaign website does not mention her positions on LGBTQ issues.

The Washington Blade reached out to Andrews’s campaign for comment on Trump’s attack and her positions on transgender rights but did not hear back by time of publication.

Continue Reading

Popular