{"id":65139,"date":"2026-10-31T11:42:51","date_gmt":"2026-10-31T16:42:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=65139"},"modified":"2026-10-31T11:50:30","modified_gmt":"2026-10-31T16:50:30","slug":"s-d-w-va-subpoenas-for-records-on-advocacy-positions-violated-1a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=65139","title":{"rendered":"S.D.W.Va.: Subpoenas for records on advocacy positions violated 1A"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Under the First Amendment, citizen\u2019s organizations can\u2019t be compelled to produce records of how they take advocacy positions. The Fourth Amendment claim is reserved for later. W. Va. Rivers Coal., Inc. v. McCuskey<\/a>, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 248256 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 29, 2026) [The real question to me is why the WV AG thought this would fly. This isn’t even close. Go ahead: appeal. Make their day.]:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

The Attorney General of West Virginia has used the State’s power to compel two citizen organizations to open ten years of their files: their drafts and internal arguments, the groups they have funded, the people who serve on their boards, the coalitions they have joined, and what they have told the agencies they petition. Neither organization markets goods nor services relevant to the subpoenas. The Attorney General identifies no consumer who was cheated, no sale, and no purchase made in reliance on anything either group said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What these organizations do is argue in public about what coal, oil, and gas do to West Virginia’s waters and climate. The State’s chief legal officer, who has publicly condemned that advocacy, now demands to know how they reached their views and who stood with them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The First Amendment forbids a State from using its investigative power that way, and I will not allow it while this case is pending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The country was founded on the premise that a citizen owes the government no account of his opinions or of the people he holds them with. The Attorney General has demanded that two citizen organizations hand the State their working lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The State wants a decade of what they published, down to a note sent to a single person outside the organization, along with the unreleased drafts and the internal arguments over what to say. He demanded the names of the organizations that fund them and what each gave, and he has now withdrawn that demand. He still wants the groups they paid, the board members they share, the coalitions they joined, and the comments they filed with the agencies they were petitioning. Because the demand period runs to the date of compliance, the subpoenas reach new communications written while they remain outstanding. No demand identifies a consumer, a sale, or a statement anyone relied on. The subpoenas go into how these citizens arrived at their positions on public questions and who helped them get there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

. . .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This phenomenon of state and federal investigation into the affairs of advocacy non-profits has begun to permeate our culture. The courts have enjoined civil investigative demands on comparable records. See Media Matters for America v. Paxton, 138 F.4th 563, 569 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (enjoining the enforcement of civil investigatory demands against a media group who published unfavorable reporting); Endocrine Society v. FTC, 832 F. Supp. 3d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2026) (enjoining the enforcement of civil investigatory demands against a medical non-profit organization that studied gender-affirming care and the science of hormones); Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Rokita, No. 1:25-cv-01885-TWP-CSW, 2026 WL 2249397, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 5, 2026) (enjoining the enforcement of civil investigatory demands against a non-profit that provided services to immigrants, refugees, migrants, and other noncitizens).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Under the First Amendment, citizen\u2019s organizations can\u2019t be compelled to produce records of how they take advocacy positions. The Fourth Amendment claim is reserved for later. W. Va. Rivers Coal., Inc. v. McCuskey, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 248256 (S.D. W. … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=65139"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65139\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":65143,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65139\/revisions\/65143"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=65139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=65139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=65139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}