Led by student-attorneys Abdullah Ali, ’26, and Logan Paeglis, ’26, the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt Law School filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of clients Open Justice Baltimore (“OJB”), Alissa Figueroa, and Brandon Soderberg. The Clinic’s clients report on police misconduct within the Baltimore Police Department (“BPD”). As part of their reporting, they each made public records requests under the Maryland Public Information Act for records related to officer misconduct, but BPD repeatedly obstructed disclosure of records to the client group. The group filed suit, alleging First Amendment violations based on content and viewpoint-based discrimination and retaliation against constitutionally protected speech.
Despite robust allegations, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the client group’s complaint. In affirming, the Fourth Circuit emphasized so-called “obvious alternative explanations” for BPD’s obstruction. The appellate court settled on “bureaucratic dysfunction” as the reason that the clients received delayed and deficient responses to records requests.
Undeterred by the court’s reliance on a pretextual explanation, Ali and Paeglis identified a split amongst the circuit courts regarding how the burden to either substantiate or negate a defendant’s proffered “obvious alternative explanation” for alleged conduct is allocated between parties, which is the basis of the petition for certiorari. The Second, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits have a plaintiff-friendly rule, while the Ninth Circuit has adopted a harsh, defendant-friendly rule that contradicts the liberal pleading standard set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By accepting the defendants’ explanations as true, the Fourth Circuit aligned itself with the Ninth Circuit’s defendant-friendly standard.
The Fourth Circuit’s decision is particularly concerning because it prematurely credited an alternative explanation and cast aside its duty to accept a plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom. There was no elaboration on which party bears the burden of substantiating or negating an alternative explanation. Instead, the court, relying on vague statements and its judicial common sense, simply stated that it found more merit in BPD’s alternative explanation. Such a ruling conflicts with clear Supreme Court precedent and negatively impacts plaintiffs bringing a wide variety of causes of action.
“This petition asks the Supreme Court to reinforce what precedent already make clear: courts must take plaintiffs’ allegations as true and cannot dismiss lawsuits based on pretextual justifications. The Fourth Circuit’s decision threatens to shield misconduct from accountability by allowing the defendant’s preemptory excuses to short-circuit claims before discovery,” noted Clinic Director Jennifer Safstrom.
