Civil-Liberties and Press-Freedom Groups Applaud First Circuit Ruling in Rodríguez-Cotto v. González-Colón, Affirming First Amendment Rights

WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, civil-liberties and press-freedom organizations praised the First Circuit’s ruling in Rodríguez-Cotto v. González-Colón. The First Circuit’s ruling upholds a district court’s permanent injunction, preventing use of a Puerto Rican law criminalizing information shared about states of emergency.

Article 5.14(a) of Puerto Rico law, known as the “Fake News” law, was enacted during the COVID-19 crisis and criminalized raising a “false alarm” or spreading false information about public emergencies, with penalties of up to three years in jail and fines of $5,000. Journalists Sandra Rodríguez-Cotto and Rafelli González-Cotto challenged the provision in 2020, arguing it chilled press freedom by making reporters hesitant to share information for fear of prosecution if facts were later disputed.

A federal district court struck down the law as unconstitutional in July 2023, ruling that the statute violated the First Amendment by imposing an impermissible content-based restriction on speech and failing strict scrutiny. Upon appeal before the First Circuit, the University of Georgia’s First Amendment Clinic, Free Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and PEN American Center, Inc., filed a “friend of the court” brief urging this outcome. The brief emphasizes how similar laws in other countries have become tools for suppressing legitimate news reporting and citizen dissent.

“Vague, chilling, and ripe for abuse, Section 5.14(a) imperils free speech and free press rights while inhibiting the free flow of information on matters of public concern,” the groups wrote in the August 2025 filing. “The statute goes far beyond violating the First Amendment rights of the individual parties in this case; it deeply impoverishes the First Amendment interests of speakers and listeners at large.”

Nora Benavidez, Free Press’ senior counsel and director of digital justice and civil rights, said:

“This is a win for free speech and press freedom. While it’s only natural that governments seek to rein in misinformation, especially during moments of crisis, such attempts are often the vehicle through which government actors target the press and muzzle dissent. At the heart of our First Amendment is the ability to share information, opinions and news of the day that might be of public import. We need these things more than ever as we face rising authoritarianism around the world and unrelenting attacks on freedom of the press and speech — including in the United States. Free Press applauds the First Circuit’s ruling today.”

Clare Norins, director of the University of Georgia’s First Amendment Clinic, said:

“This decision is a critical safeguard for the free flow of information during emergencies, precisely when the public’s need to know is greatest. We’re pleased the First Circuit recognized that Puerto Rico’s law swept far too broadly. Its permanent injunction means that journalists and other speakers need not fear prosecution if they challenge government narratives.”

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said:

“The First Circuit got this exactly right. Recent U.S. history clearly demonstrates that ambiguous and overbroad statutes restricting speech will inevitably be abused to crack down on dissent and journalism. It’s a question of when, not if. Lawmakers considering similar legislation need to think not only about their own intentions but the intentions of bad actors who may occupy their seats in the future.”