Court Battles

Judge clears New York Times to publish Project Veritas documents

A New York appeals court decided an order preventing The New York Times from publishing documents related to Project Veritas would not be enforced before a formal appeal for the case was heard. 

The decision, which was made available to the public on Thursday, means that The Times will be allowed to publish parts of the documents and will not need to turn over or destroy copies of the documents in the newspaper’s possession, The New York Times reported

“We’re pleased with today’s decision to stop the enforcement of prior restraint while the case is being appealed, and we look forward to explaining our position in the appeal,” Danielle Rhoades Ha, a spokesperson for the newspaper, said. 

“The use of prior restraint to prohibit news gathering and block the publication of newsworthy journalism is unconstitutional. No libel plaintiffs should be permitted to use their litigation as a tool to silence press coverage about them,” Ha added.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Locke, a lawyer for Project Veritas, said the group was “pleased that the Appellate Division denied The Times’s overreaching request to vacate the order.” 

Locke noted in her statement that she was “confident” the appeals court would decide “that The Times violated Veritas’s substantial rights by acquiring and publishing attorney-client privileged materials in the midst of ongoing litigation,” according to The Times.

An appeal in December determined that The Times would not need to turn over or destroy certain documents but were still not permitted to publish the documents. However, the newspaper said at the time that it had not immediately sought to get that part of the order lifted and said it instead asked for an expedited hearing. 

Project Veritas sued the newspaper for defamation following a September 2020 article about alleged voter fraud.

Project Veritas, which is led by James O’Keefe, attempts to expose what it considers to be liberal media bias through undercover tactics. However, some critics say the group’s work is misleading and its videos are deceptively edited.


Most Popular

Load more


See all Video