Flynt vs Rumsfeld (2004)

Flynt vs Rumsfeld (2004) - Notice: This opinion is subject...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 21, 2003 Decided February 3, 2004 No. 03-5075 L ARRY F LYNT AND L.F.P., I NC., A PPELLANTS v. D ONALD H. R UMSFELD, I N HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS S ECRETARY OF D EFENSE AND D EPARTMENT OF D EFENSE, A PPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 01cv02399) Paul J. Cambria, Jr. argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Roger W. Wilcox, Jr. and John G. Perazich . Michael S. Raab , Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out of time.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 Peter D. Keisler , Assistant Attorney General, Roscoe C. How- ard, Jr. , U.S. Attorney, and Mark B. Stern , Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Before: E DWARDS , S ENTELLE and H ENDERSON , Circuit Judges . Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge S ENTELLE . S ENTELLE , Circuit Judge : Larry Flynt and L.F.P., Inc. (the company that publishes Hustler magazine) (collectively ‘‘Flynt’’ or ‘‘appellants’’) sued Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, and the United States Department of Defense (‘‘DOD’’) seeking, inter alia , injunctive relief against interfer- ence with its exercise of a claimed First Amendment right of the news media to have access to U.S. troops in combat operations, and claiming that DOD’s delay in granting Hus- tler ’s reporter access to U.S. troops in Afghanistan infringed that right. They further argued that DOD’s Directive con- trolling media access to military forces facially violates this same constitutional right. The District Court dismissed Flynt’s as-applied constitutional claims for lack of ripeness and standing, and refused to exercise its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to declare the pertinent DOD Directive facially unconstitutional. This appeal followed. Be- cause we find that no such constitutional right exists, we will affirm the District Court’s decision on other grounds. I. Background A. Hustler ’s attempts to gain access Shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States military began combat operations in Afghani- stan in support of the global war on terrorism. On October 30, 2001, Flynt wrote a letter to the Honorable Victoria Clarke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, requesting that Hustler correspondents ‘‘be permitted to accompany ground troops on combat missions and that said correspondents be allowed free access to the theater of United States military operations in Afghanistan and other countries where hostilities may be occurring as part of Opera-
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/04/2011 for the course DINFOS PAQC taught by Professor Various during the Spring '11 term at Park.

Page1 / 15

Flynt vs Rumsfeld (2004) - Notice: This opinion is subject...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online