Plaintiffs Don’t ‘Meaningfully Dispute’ Arguments for Stay in ‘Buffer Law’ Case: Ind. AG
The seven media organization plaintiffs that oppose Indiana's Feb. 21 motion to stay their "buffer law" case pending the outcome of a YouTuber’s 7th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court appeal (see 2402260032) “fail to meaningfully dispute” Attorney General Todd Rokita (R)'s…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
arguments for a stay, said the AG's reply Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01805) in U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis. The organizations are seeking to block Rokita from enforcing HB-1186, the state’s buffer law, which makes it a misdemeanor for reporters to come within 25 feet of police officers on active duty. The organizations propose that the standard set forth in the 1936 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Landis v. North American Co. applies to the stay sought here, said Rokita’s reply. But that standard applies only where there’s a fair possibility that the stay will damage the opposing party, it said. Because this case involves “very little possibility of damage” to the media organizations, that standard doesn’t apply here, it said. The requested stay should be granted, it said. The media organizations recognize Landis’ high bar for a stay, it said. Despite this recognition, "they do little to establish that a stay would harm them in the first place, and even less to argue against the points Indiana has raised showing that they would not be harmed," it said.