A Mississippi judge has ruled the State Legislature is not a "public body" under the state's Open Meetings Act, a decision allowing lawmakers to hold secret caucus meetings.

The decision comes after the Mississippi Free Press sued to open these meetings to the public, in the name of transparency. The case originated when the nonprofit paper filed an ethics complaint after one of its reporters, Nick Judin, was barred from attending a closed Republican caucus meeting in the House of Representatives.

Donna Ladd, editor and CEO of the Mississippi Free Press, called the ruling a blow to open government.

"About the way this is worded, to me, is a technicality that allows them -- when they want to -- to get around the idea of public transparency," Ladd observed. "So, it's kind of status quo, and especially in a state where -- I mean, let's just be honest -- much of Mississippi's history has been one-party rule, one way or the other."

In the ruling, the judge stated the Open Meetings Act applies only to "executive or administrative bodies," not the Legislature itself. Supporters of the ruling argued political caucuses are internal party matters and privacy is essential for candid discussions.

Rob McDuff, director of impact litigation for the Mississippi Center for Justice, argued on behalf of the Mississippi Free Press that caucus meetings should be open under the Open Meetings Act, as they involve a quorum of the House discussing public business. However, McDuff explained the Ethics Commission and Chancery Court ruled against them, with the judge citing a narrow definition of "public body."

"That just seems quite nonsensical when you think, of course, the Mississippi Legislature is a public body in Mississippi," McDuff pointed out. "But the wording of the particular statute, the Open Meetings Act, is what led him to that conclusion."

The ruling means journalists and the public cannot hear the debates shaping policy. While advocates for open government said the fight is not over, the decision sets a troubling precedent for transparency nationwide. As Free Press Editor Donna Ladd warned, "Don't think that it can't happen in your state."


get more stories like this via email

A former community organizer and newly-elected lawmaker is responding to the Trump administration's escalating attacks on the press with a proposed law to strengthen privacy protections for New Mexico journalists.

Rep. Sarah Silva, D-Las Cruces, said House Bill 153 is needed to replace a state statute last updated in the 1970s before the internet, email and cellphones. With the Trump administration targeting journalists as "enemies of the state" for reporting the daily news, she stressed it is important to reinforce a reporter's privilege to protect their sources.

"Given the current state of affairs at the federal level, I want to do as much as I can to protect journalists here in New Mexico from the threat of subpoena or some sort of civil case," Silva explained.

In recent weeks, major media outlets including ABC and CBS have entered into negotiations or agreed to pay huge settlements over court cases brought against them by Trump. Others have lost assigned spots in the White House press area. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission has launched a funding investigation into the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio.

Silva, who is married to a journalist, said she modeled the bill on the federal PRESS Act, proposed legislation which failed to pass the U.S. Senate last year after then President-elect Trump assailed it on his social media site.

Silva's bill would bar the executive branch or New Mexico's administrative agencies from obtaining a subpoena to force journalists to identify their sources or to disclose unpublished information they gathered for a story.

"As a community organizer, I really relied on journalists in the field to be covering issues like immigration reform for closures," Silva recounted. "They were helping move the needle on really important issues or they were revealing problems that the organizer needed to know about."

The bill includes some exceptions against protecting journalists, including terrorism investigations or when an imminent threat of harm exists.

In the last days of President Joe Biden's term, senators are tackling some of their highest priorities, like confirming judges. But that may also include passing a bill to protect reporters and their sources.

The Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act would provide a federal shield law for a reporter to protect the identities of their sources.

Lucy Dalglish, former dean of the Merrill College of Journalism, said the bill would protect all types of journalists, from independent reporters to those at mainstream publications.

"It covers more than just traditional, mainstream media journalists," she said. "It covers folks, such as ones who are working for this radio network, and others who regularly collect information, digest it in some way and disseminate it to the public."

She added the bill also bans investigators going to telecommunications or other internet companies to see who a reporter has been in contact with. Right now, 49 states and Washington, D.C. have a shield law or some legal precedent on the books.

In January, the legislation unanimously passed the House of Representatives. But last week, the bill failed after Sen. Tom Cotton, R-AR, objected to its passage. The only way now for the bill to pass Congress is if it is attached to another piece of legislation - or if the Senate has a stand-alone vote on the bill.

Dalglish said it's sometimes surprising how administrations vary in their subpoenas of reporters. For example, she explained, many thought the subpoenaing of reporters after 9/11 would stop with a new president. But Dalglish said President Barack Obama and his justice department accessed the phone records of more reporters than any other president.

"And you get more subpoenas during different times in history, what's going on in society. It hasn't been too bad lately, but it goes in spurts," she said. "And of course, we really have no idea what's going to be going on in this new Trump administration."

A slew of press freedom organizations support the proposed law, including the Society of Professional Journalists and Reporters Without Borders.


get more stories like this via email

Gov. Kristi Noem wants a big budget cut for South Dakota Public Broadcasting in 2026. That could hurt its nine television stations and 11 radio stations, and the South Dakotans they serve.

Noem is proposing just under $2 million for South Dakota Public Broadcasting, or SDPB, in 2026. That's a cut of about 65% - or more than $3.5 million below its 2025 budget.

Plus, according to SDPB Executive Director Julie Overgaard, less state funding would threaten another $1 million in grants.

"It's devastating news for SDPB," said Overgaard, "and - in my belief and others' - it basically puts us on a trajectory for insolvency within the next 12 to 36 months."

In addition to news, Overgaard said SDPB covers high school sports, streams live legislative sessions and provides public interest programming on topics like children's issues and tourism.

Local news sources have been shutting down or being bought out for years. More than 3,200 U.S. newspapers have gone out of print since 2005, according to a report from the Local News Initiative.

Overgaard said the state's last locally-owned commercial TV station was sold to an out-of-state buyer this summer.

"We really kind of are the last stand here," said Overgaard, "for having something locally owned that's telling stories and providing news and issue coverage that are unique to South Dakota."

According to the report, six South Dakota counties are without a local news source and 33 counties have only one.

Overgaard said after state funding and grants, SDPB's third major source of funding is private donations and gifts - including from viewers and listeners.

She said she's worried that source will also slow down if SDPB can't keep covering local events and news.

"It's a tough go right now, I think, for public media organizations like ours," said Overgaard. "But I still think there's enough public support and enough public need for the services that we provide. "

The budget cuts are likely to "disproportionately affect rural services, where SDPB's programming is most valued," according to a statement from the organization.




get more stories like this via email