Attorney has mixed feelings about Supreme Court ruling
Herald Standard attorney Charles Kelly said he had mixed feelings about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the newspaper’s legal fight to make public the phone records of state Rep. Larry Roberts (D-South Union Twp). The court ruled that the Herald-Standard had the right to have its case heard in court, and it sent the matter back to Commonwealth Court, which had previously rejected the newspaper’s arguments.
“There were some bad things and some good things,” said Kelly.
He said the bad thing was the court’s decision that the newspaper had no access to the phone records under common law or the Pennsylvania Constitution.
“That’s very disappointing,’ said Kelly. “We thought we had made a good case on that point.’
While acknowledging that he had not read the entire court decision, Roberts noted that “it is obvious to me that the Supreme Court agrees that the newspaper has no legal right to my phone bills. Secondly, had I not voluntarily offered up any of my phone bills, I think that there would not be an issue at all. The only issue that remains is an issue that comes about because I voluntarily offered my phone bill. Had I not voluntarily offered them, there would not be an issue, because the Supreme Court, in fact, agrees that the newspaper has no legal right to see my phone bills.”
Kelly said the best thing about the ruling was the court’s decision on legislative immunity. Commonwealth Court had ruled that the immunity extended to Roberts’ phone records and therefore the newspaper’s other arguments about equal protection and retaliation were moot. However, the Supreme Court ruled legislative immunity primarily involves a legislator’s official duties and that lawmakers are not protected otherwise. “That was big because now we can pursue our other claims,” said Kelly.
He noted those claims involve equal protection and the First Amendment rights of the Herald-Standard. Kelly had argued that the Herald-Standard was entitled to equal protection claims because Roberts had offered the records to other media but not the Herald-Standard.
Kelly also said that the court reinstituted the Herald-Standard’s retaliation claim, in which the newspaper has alleged that Roberts tried to violate Herald-Standard reporter Paul Sunyak’s First Amendment rights because the lawmaker offered to give his phone records to other Herald-Standard reporters but not Sunyak.
“The court agreed that we had a case on these issues,’ said Kelly. “Now we have to go back to Commonwealth Court and prove them.”
Kelly said the case now will proceed as any other case through the legal system.