In a major First Amendment and investigative-reporting win, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has overturned a jury verdict and damages award against James O’Keefe and undercover journalist Allison Maass stemming from a Project Veritas investigation into Democracy Partners.
The panel ruled 2-1 that the First Amendment protects publishing undercover footage and that the damages improperly punished protected journalistic activity.
O’Keefe announced the decision in a video posted on his X account Friday evening, saying his faith in the future of journalism has been restored after the appellate court, including a Democrat-appointed judge, set a powerful precedent for undercover work nationwide.
The case stems from Project Veritas’s undercover operation in which Maass obtained an unpaid internship at Democracy Partners, the progressive consulting firm led by Robert Creamer, by misrepresenting her identity.
The videos she took exposed internal discussions and operations, leading Creamer and the firm to sue for fraudulent misrepresentation, wiretapping, and related claims.
A jury later awarded damages, including $120,000 for lost contracts, based in part on the economic harm that followed publication of the reporting.
On appeal, Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, writing for the majority and joined by Judge Harry Edwards, held that the damages award violated the First Amendment because the primary cause of the claimed losses was the protected content of the news story itself rather than any unprotected conduct.
The court held that a jury cannot impose liability that punishes publishing newsworthy information obtained through undercover methods.
O’Keefe is the founder of Project Veritas and now CEO of O’Keefe Media Group (OMG).
While the court acknowledged that certain methods of gathering information may not themselves be constitutionally shielded, it found that the jury’s award could not stand when protected speech was the dominant factor in the harm alleged.
Should publishing newsworthy information obtained through undercover methods be protected by the First Amendment?
