Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Flynt v. Rumsfeld

355 F.3d 697 (2004)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Flynt v. Rumsfeld

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

355 F.3d 697 (2004)

Facts

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States military began combat operations in Afghanistan. The Department of Defense (DOD) (defendant) issued a directive concerning media access to troops, which included an enclosure covering DOD principles related to the news media. The directive stated that open and independent reporting must be the primary method of military coverage and established broad media access, including a provision that journalists, whenever possible, must be permitted to ride on military vehicles. The directive included only a few restrictions, such as a limitation on media access in special-operations situations. Larry Flynt (plaintiff), who published Hustler magazine under his company, L.F.P, Inc., wrote to Victoria Clarke, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. Flynt requested permission for Hustler reporters to travel with combat troops and receive access to military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Clarke responded that she could not grant immediate access to ground troops because only a small number of servicemen, who were involved in special operations, were currently on the ground, but she provided contact information so that Hustler could receive access to other aspects of military operations that other media entities had received. No other media representatives embedded in the military at that time. Flynt filed a lawsuit against the DOD as well as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (defendant), claiming that the directive and its enforcement by Clarke violated the right of the media to travel with and be fully accommodated by, also known as embedding in, the military. Flynt argued that the directive was unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Hustler. The district court dismissed Flynt’s claim, and Flynt appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sentelle, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 606,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership