In a major legal blow to investigative journalism, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Oregon’s law banning undercover recording without prior consent, effectively barring Project Veritas from conducting undercover investigations in the state. The ruling is seen as a significant setback for the organization, which has built its reputation on undercover reporting that has exposed high-profile corruption and misconduct.
The en banc court affirmed the dismissal of Project Veritas’s challenge, asserting that Oregon’s “conversational privacy statute” does not violate the First Amendment. According to the ruling, the statute is content-neutral and places limitations on secret recordings to protect individual privacy, with exceptions for specific circumstances such as felony cases or law enforcement operations.
The court rejected Project Veritas’s argument that banning undercover recordings infringes on free speech. Writing for the majority, the court stated:
“The privacy statute does not discriminate based on viewpoint or restrict discussion of an entire topic. Instead, it imposes neutral, content-agnostic limits on unannounced recordings.”
Judge Mark Bennett’s concurring opinion emphasized that secretly pressing a record button is not inherently protected speech. “There is no historical or precedential foundation to support the idea that the mechanical act of recording in secret is always protected by the First Amendment,” he wrote.
The case stems from a 2020 lawsuit filed by Project Veritas against Oregon’s law, which prohibits recording conversations without informing all participants. Originally passed in 1959 and amended in 1979 and 2015, the law aims to safeguard personal privacy. Project Veritas argued that the statute stifled their ability to uncover corruption, particularly during the George Floyd protests in 2020, when the group wanted to record conversations to expose misconduct.
BREAKING: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has REVERSED our pivotal First Amendment win, bringing back the prohibition on undercover journalism in Oregon.
This decision is a setback in the fight for free speech and anti-corruption journalists.
It’s clear our opponents want… pic.twitter.com/xw3fWh8DXr
— Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) January 7, 2025
Following the ruling, Project Veritas issued a fiery statement, declaring:
“This decision is a setback in the fight for free speech and anti-corruption journalism. Our opponents want to criminalize undercover journalism and make it harder to expose wrongdoing in Oregon. We intend to take this battle to the Supreme Court.”
The group has a long history of using covert methods to expose controversial practices, often sparking debate about the balance between investigative journalism and ethical boundaries.
The lawsuit initially gained traction in 2023 when a three-judge panel ruled in favor of Project Veritas, striking down Oregon’s law. However, that decision was vacated when an 11-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case, ultimately reversing the earlier ruling.
Benjamin Barr, Project Veritas’s attorney, argued during oral hearings in June that the law infringes on journalists’ First Amendment rights, stating:
“A journalist’s choice about who to record and how to do it implicates important First Amendment concerns.”
Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman countered that the law is content-neutral and that private conversations do not constitute expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.
The case has drawn attention from a wide range of organizations. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and other advocacy groups joined constitutional law professors in supporting Project Veritas’s position. They argued that undercover recordings are vital to investigative journalism and whistleblowing.
“Undercover journalism is essential to holding powerful institutions accountable,” said a spokesperson for FIRE. “This ruling sets a dangerous precedent for the free press.”
Critics, however, argue that Project Veritas’s tactics often blur ethical lines and that privacy protections are necessary to prevent abuse.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling could have far-reaching consequences for investigative journalism, particularly for organizations like Project Veritas that rely heavily on covert methods. Oregon’s law now stands as a significant barrier to undercover reporting, raising questions about how journalists can navigate such restrictions while exposing corruption.
The ruling also underscores a broader tension between privacy rights and press freedoms. While the court emphasized the statute’s content-neutral nature, critics worry that similar laws could be weaponized to stifle journalistic accountability in other states.
Project Veritas plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a potential landmark ruling on the intersection of free speech and privacy. If the high court takes up the case, the outcome could redefine the boundaries of undercover journalism across the nation.
As the debate continues, this case serves as a pivotal moment for both advocates of privacy rights and defenders of press freedom. With Project Veritas vowing to fight on, the battle between investigative transparency and individual privacy is far from over.
