Project Veritas, et al. v. Nathan Vasquez, in His Official Capacity as Multnomah County District Attorney, et al.

Oregon’s audio recording law—a national outlier— requires “specifically inform[ing]” anyone in almost any conversation that their words are being recorded. This peculiar requirement severely hampers modern investigative journalism, under mining the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and newsgathering by effectively prohibiting the use of today’s most powerful reporting tools—discreet audio recordings. Moreover, the law’s inconsistent application permits and thereby favors UHFRUGLQJV RI VHOHFW VXEMHFWV VXFK DV SROLFH RIÀFHUV RU conversations during certain felonies, raising profound content-discrimination concerns. 'HVSLWH WKHVH FRQVWLWXWLRQDO LQÀUPLWLHV WKH 8QLWHG States District Court for the District of Oregon granted WKHVWDWH·VPRWLRQWRGLVPLVVÀQGLQJQR)LUVW$PHQGPHQW injuries. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the law to be a content based and unconstitutional restriction of speech. An en banc panel vacated and ultimately reversed, contravening its own precedent, and upheld the law. This case presents a critical opportunity for this Court to clarify First Amendment doctrine, ensuring it aligns with the realities of modern journalism and the use of technology for effective speech and accountability. The questions presented are: Did the Ninth Circuit err by holding that Oregon’s prohibition of unannounced recordings—which expressly exempts recordings of police activity and discussions during certain felonies—is content neutral and thus VXEMHFWRQO\WRLQWHUPHGLDWHVFUXWLQ\LQFRQÁLFWZLWKWKLV