An emergency motion filed on Wednesday requests Tennessee Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea L. Myles set aside her June 10 court order which established a Show Cause hearing on Monday. Myles issued the order after dozens of articles that reported writings from a journal recovered from Covenant School killer Audrey Elizabeth Hale were published by The Tennessee Star.
Michael Patrick Leahy, who is the CEO of Star News Digital Media, Inc. and the editor-in-chief of The Star, was ordered by Myles to appear in court on Monday after WSMV 4 reporter Stacey Cameron claimed he called the court to ask Myles “if she was considering holding the Star or anyone else in contempt” due to its reporting.
A show cause hearing is generally a court order or demand from a judge for a party in a court case to explain why the court should not issue a motion ruling against them based on available evidence.
Myles is overseeing the Tennessee lawsuit in which both Leahy and Star News Digital Media, Inc. are plaintiffs seeking to compel the full release of Hale’s writings, including those that have been called a manifesto, by the Metro Nashville Police Department. Leahy and Star News Digital Media, Inc. are also plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit against the FBI for the same purpose.
In her June 10 order, Myles said Leahy must explain why the extensive reporting by The Star “does not violate the Orders of this Court.” If reporting by The Star is deemed to have violated any orders, which Myles did not enumerate, both Star News Digital Media, Inc. and Leahy could be subjected “to contempt proceedings and sanctions.”
Leahy’s emergency filing, submitted by nationally recognized First Amendment attorney Daniel A. Horwitz, argues that Myles should set aside her June 10 order because it did not enumerate which previous Orders of the Court were allegedly violated by Leahy or Star News Digital Media, Inc., steps outside the bounds of existing Tennessee law, fails to offer Leahy due process, and does not adhere to protections afforded to journalists.
“The Show Cause Order does not specify or otherwise identify ‘the Orders of this Court’ that it implies may have been violated.” The filing notes, “The Show Cause Order does make clear, however, that it is concerned with the acts – specifically, ‘the publication of certain purported documents and information’ – that transpired outside the presence of the Court.”
Additionally, the filing notes Myles’ order setting the show cause hearing references the publication of materials “outside the judicial record.”
The distinction is significant, according to the filing, “because the only two previous orders that appear even plausibly to be implicated here” do not “impose nor import to impose any restrictions on such external publication” by Leahy.
Myles’ order establishing the show cause hearing is additionally alleged to have violated Tennessee’s “shield law” which the filing notes “protects reporters from being compelled to reveal any information – or the source of any information – procured for publication and broadcast.”
Tennessee Code 24-1-208(a) is referenced specifically, as it mandates:
A person engaged in gathering information for publication or broadcast connected with or employed by the news media or press, or who is independently engaged in gathering information for publication or broadcast, shall not be required by a court, a grand jury, the general assembly, or any administrative body, to disclose before the general assembly
or any Tennessee court, grand jury, agency, department, or commission any information or the source of any information procured for publication or broadcast.
The filing warns, “Such forbidden disclosure appears to be exactly what is contemplated by this Court’s Show Cause Order,” and additionally that Leahy “cannot lawfully be compelled to participate in a show cause hearing” that requires him to disclose such information.
According to the filing, Myles’ order “is out of step with other components of Tennessee’s contempt law, too.”
Citing legal precedent, the filing notes any contemplation of contempt against Leahy would likely be considered indirect criminal contempt, but warned that Myles’ order did not appear to follow the appropriate procedure for this charge, as Leahy was given just seven days to prepare his defense and does not know what court orders he is alleged to have violated.
“Given these circumstances, Mr. Leahy is left to guess what he is accused of doing that this Court believes may subject him ‘to contempt proceedings and sanctions,'” the order explains, adding that the “uncertainty deprives Mr. Leahy of the fair notice” required in Tennessee.
The filing also argues Leahy “cannot safely participate” in the Monday hearing, and “[b]ecause he does not know the orders he is being accused of violating, anything he says risks incriminating him with respect to future-but-as-yet-unknown contempt charges based on unidentified provisions of unidentified orders.”
As a result, the filing explains Horwitz will advise Leahy “to exercise his right not to Testify at the Court’s show cause hearing,” and argues, “the Court cannot legally compel him to do so.” The filing argues:
Simply put: Mr. Leahy cannot risk responding to this Court’s inquiries when he has not received pre-hearing notice of the specific provisions of the specific orders that the Court suspects he may have violated. Under these circumstances, Mr. Leahy respectfully objects to the Court’s order compelling him to appear and show cause why he should not be subject to contempt proceedings. Accordingly, Mr. Leahy moves this Court to set aside its Show Cause Order on the basis that it contravenes minimum due process guarantees.
Regardless of which previous court orders Myles claims Leahy violated, the filing notes her order setting the show cause hearing implies, “the Court believes an earlier order entered in this case restricted Mr. Leahy—a reporter—from publishing lawfully obtained documents to his readership.”
The filing notes that none of Myles’ previous court orders appear “to contemplate such a drastic action,” but warns that such an interpretation of a previous order would be “a prior restraint that suffers from serious constitutional infirmities and is presumptively unconstitutional.”
According to the filing, “if this Court believes that Mr. Leahy has violated an earlier prior restraint order, then Mr. Leahy is entitled to challenge the constitutionality of the order before being subject to contempt.”
The filing requested Myles announce her decision about whether to set aside her court order establishing the show cause hearing by Thursday at noon. A similar filing on behalf of Star News may be forthcoming.
Read the full emergency filing submitted on Wednesday:
– – –
Tom Pappert is the lead reporter for The Tennessee Star, and also reports for The Pennsylvania Daily Star and The Arizona Sun Times. Follow Tom on X/Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
That’s why there are leaks. To get around activist judges .
The “justice” system of Davidson County is a joke. It is trying to follow in Atlanta’s footsteps with higher crime and property taxes. Now we are told the Feds were asking for Covenant related documents be destroyed. I regret living in this progressive dump. Good luck to Mr. Leahy fighting these enemies of a fair judicial system.
I think you all have already been declared guilty of publishing the truth without a license with an especially aggravating factor of doing so while conservative in Nashville.
That upgrades it to a felony.
Now that you’re a felon, you can no longer vote or own a firearm. If you are tangentially related to a restaurant then your liquor license is next.
You’ll be convicted by a jury of your peers. Six members of Emily’s List between Inglewood and Midtown, 2 comrades from a pro-Hamas sect at Vanderbilt, 2 members of the Nashville Scene’s pith in the wind website and 2 volunteers from drag queen story hour