Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Leaderboard Analytics
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Project Veritas, et al v. Michael Schmidt, et al
Case Number:
22-35271
Court:
Nature of Suit:
3950 Constitutionality of State Statutes
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
January 07, 2025
9th Circ. Upholds Ore. Ban On Secret Audio Recordings
A split en banc Ninth Circuit panel on Tuesday upheld as constitutional an Oregon law prohibiting secret audio recordings of people's conversations, ruling in a published opinion that the statute was narrowly tailored to Oregon's significant interest in ensuring its residents know when their conversations are recorded, even in public.
-
June 25, 2024
Project Veritas Rips Ore. Recording Ban At En Banc 9th Circ.
Project Veritas urged an en banc Ninth Circuit panel Tuesday to find that Oregon's decades-old statute that makes it a felony to secretly record people in public places violates the First Amendment, arguing the "dangerous" statute deters investigative journalism as "one of the broadest recording laws in the nation."
-
July 03, 2023
Split 9th Circ. Invalidates Oregon's Ban On Secret Recordings
A split Ninth Circuit panel sided with Project Veritas Monday and found Oregon's decades-old wiretapping statute making it a felony to secretly record people in public places violates the First Amendment, while a dissenting judge slammed the majority's opinion for potentially opening the door for "massive and ongoing invasions of privacy."