Tennessee attorney Daniel Horwitz can now freely criticize CoreCivic’s private prison operations after a federal court struck down a controversial gag order that had stifled his First Amendment rights for years.
Key Takeaways
- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee removed a local rule that had presumed attorneys’ public statements were prejudicial to court cases
- Civil rights attorney Daniel Horwitz can now resume public criticism of CoreCivic regarding alleged understaffing and inmate deaths at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center
- Horwitz had previously been ordered to delete social media posts criticizing CoreCivic and was barred from commenting on a wrongful death lawsuit
- The court’s decision represents a significant victory for First Amendment rights in the legal profession
- The case highlights the tension between court decorum and attorneys’ free speech rights when addressing matters of public interest
Court Reverses Position on Attorney Speech
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has amended its local rules to remove a provision that automatically assumed out-of-court statements by attorneys were prejudicial to ongoing cases. This significant change comes after civil rights attorney Daniel Horwitz filed a federal lawsuit challenging the restriction as an unconstitutional violation of his First Amendment rights. The previous rule placed the burden on lawyers to prove their public comments would not interfere with fair trials, effectively silencing attorneys who wished to discuss cases of public importance outside the courtroom. The amendment represents a major victory for legal advocates who argue that public discourse about court cases serves an essential function in our democratic system.
“I’m thrilled that my First Amendment rights have been vindicated, but more importantly, I’m thrilled that I can resume informing the public about civil rights abuses across Middle Tennessee,” said Daniel Horwitz.
The case arose after Horwitz, a prominent Tennessee civil rights litigator, was barred from commenting on a wrongful death lawsuit against CoreCivic, which operates the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center. Horwitz had been ordered to delete previous social media posts criticizing the private prison company for alleged understaffing and inmate fatalities. His criticism centered on CoreCivic’s practices at Trousdale Turner, where he claimed contractual obligations for adequate staffing were routinely ignored, leading to dangerous conditions for inmates and staff alike. These allegations form the basis of several civil rights lawsuits Horwitz has filed against the company.
Legal Battle Over Free Speech Rights
The Institute for Justice and the Southeastern Legal Foundation represented Horwitz in his constitutional challenge against the district court and four judges. The lawsuit argued that the local rule improperly chilled protected speech and prevented Horwitz from fulfilling his ethical obligation to inform the public about matters of significant public interest. Although a U.S. District Court judge initially dismissed Horwitz’s suit for lack of standing, he appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. While that appeal was pending, the court proposed and ultimately eliminated the restrictive rule after a period of public comment, effectively acknowledging the First Amendment concerns raised in the lawsuit.
“Discussing cases with the media and public is a huge part of public interest litigation, including the work that we do here,” said Scott Bullock, President and General Counsel at the Institute for Justice.
CoreCivic representatives have consistently maintained that legal matters should be resolved within the court system rather than in the media or on social platforms. The company argued that Horwitz’s comments were prejudicial and could potentially interfere with fair trial proceedings. This position underscores the fundamental tension between the judicial system’s concern for impartial proceedings and the constitutional right to free speech, particularly when addressing matters of significant public concern such as prison conditions, civil rights violations, and the treatment of incarcerated individuals under private prison management.
Victory for Transparency and Accountability
With the gag order now lifted, Horwitz has resumed his public criticism of CoreCivic, bringing renewed attention to allegations of severe understaffing and failures to comply with contractual requirements at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center. The ability to discuss these issues publicly serves several important functions: it informs taxpayers about how private prison contractors are fulfilling government contracts, alerts families of incarcerated individuals to potential safety concerns, and puts pressure on both private operators and government oversight agencies to address deficiencies. This transparency is particularly crucial when dealing with privately-operated facilities that perform governmental functions but may not be subject to the same public scrutiny as state-run institutions.
“We respect the judicial process in which amendments to local rules are reviewed and modified. We also stand by our belief that matters involving litigation, and legal rules, policies and procedures should be decided within the court system and not in the press or social media,” said Ryan Gustin, CoreCivic spokesperson.
The court’s decision to amend its rules reflects a growing recognition that attorneys play a vital role in public discourse about legal matters. For public interest attorneys like Horwitz, the ability to speak freely about cases enables them to advocate not only within the courtroom but also in the court of public opinion. This dual advocacy approach can be particularly important in cases involving systemic issues that may affect large numbers of people beyond the specific parties to a lawsuit. By removing the presumption that attorney speech is inherently prejudicial, the court has acknowledged the value of informed public discussion about important legal matters while still maintaining the ability to address truly prejudicial statements on a case-by-case basis.
