NASHVILLE, Tenn.—Back in July 2022, a federal magistrate imposed a gag order against civil rights attorney Daniel Horwitz, preventing him from making public comments about one of his own lawsuits: a wrongful death case against a private prison. The court scolded Daniel, saying “trials are meant to occur in the courtroom, not the media.” Since then, Daniel has been challenging the court’s rule limiting attorney speech as a violation of the First Amendment, but the court has avoided ruling on the issue. Today, Daniel teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit challenging the court’s attorney gag rule. 

The original gag order was imposed by a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to prevent Daniel from exercising his free speech right to inform the media and tweet about his client’s lawsuit against CoreCivic, the private prison company hired by the government. When Daniel sought to clarify that he was permitted to speak publicly about the case, CoreCivic argued that the court should silence Daniel’s public speech under a local court rule. 

“Speech critical of the government and the contractors that carry out government work is fundamental to the First Amendment and can help shed light on unlawful or unjust actions taken by the government,” said IJ Attorney Jared McClain. “The court cannot silence Daniel simply because he’s criticizing a government contractor. Public interest litigation requires public discussion.”   

Nothing Daniel has discussed or wishes to discuss with the media is private or confidential, and Daniel explained to the court how the gag order would violate his rights. Still, the magistrate made him delete his social media posts about the prison and told him he’d be in contempt if he made any further public statements.  

Since that initial gag order, Daniel has filed seven more lawsuits against CoreCivic and repeatedly asked the court to uphold his right to speak about his cases. In some cases, motions sat for many months without the court deciding Daniel’s First Amendment arguments. Despite Daniel’s diligence, all of these cases either settled or were transferred to other districts before Daniel could vindicate his free speech rights. Unable to get the court to rule on his First Amendment rights during his litigation against CoreCivic, Daniel has teamed up with IJ to file a direct challenge to the Middle District’s attorney-gag rule. 

“Tweeting about and discussing my cases is a vital part of winning, not only in the courtroom, but with the public,” Daniel said. “Seeking media attention not only helps my clients, but also raises awareness of unconstitutional practices being carried out by the government and its contractors. This helps educate both the public and lawmakers on the repercussions of unconstitutional laws.”  

For years, Daniel has sued the government when it violates people’s rights. The issues he litigates have ranged from free speech violations to wrongful incarceration to election laws. Through his years as a public interest lawyer, Daniel has learned the importance of not just making a persuasive argument before a judge or jury, but also getting media attention on his cases to make the public aware of the legal violations committed by government actors. Doing so helps raise the profile of his clients and the important civil rights issues that he works on. Such media attention can lead the public to demand meaningful changes. That’s why Daniel, like so many other public interest lawyers, speaks to the media about his cases, discusses his cases publicly, and uses social media to promote his cases. That is, until these gag orders have gone into place.  

“Talking to the public about issues relevant to the public interest is an absolutely essential part of public interest litigation – it’s right in the name,” said IJ Attorney Ben Field. “Attorneys, just like everybody else, have a First Amendment right to talk freely about important issues and raise awareness.”