Effort to restrict Central City News coverage ignites press freedom fight in Baton Rouge

BATON ROUGE, La. — A legal challenge over how Baton Rouge’s Metro Council spends public money has become a defining test of press freedom, after parish attorneys asked a judge to restrict how a local newspaper reports on the case—an extraordinary move that critics say strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.

The request, filed in the 19th Judicial District Court, seeks a protective order limiting the publication and use of court filings connected to a taxpayer lawsuit accusing Metro Council members of violating the Louisiana Constitution’s ban on the donation of public funds. The motion does not dispute the newspaper’s accuracy but instead targets the public discussion of allegations involving elected officials and taxpayer dollars.

Press advocates warn that such restrictions amount to an unconstitutional attempt to chill lawful journalism.

At issue is reporting by Central City News, which has covered a lawsuit challenging Metro Council budget provisions that allocate discretionary spending money directly to individual council members. The suit alleges those funds—generated through a gas utility franchise extension and tax—were unlawfully diverted and placed under the personal control of council members, a practice critics have labeled “slush funds.”

Public money, public scrutiny

The underlying lawsuit was filed by former Metro Council member Darrell Glasper and names Mayor-President Sid Edwards and all 12 council members as defendants. It alleges violations of Article VII, Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution, which strictly prohibits the donation or misuse of public funds unless a defined public purpose exists, the spending is legally authorized, and the public receives a proportionate benefit.

The petition further argues that the Metro Council, as a legislative body, has no authority to administer or disburse public funds on an individual basis. It challenges the classification of the spending as “contractual services,” alleging no contracts or services existed and that the labeling violated budget and transparency laws.

The case is assigned to Judge Eboni Rose Johnson.

Motion raises alarm among legal observers

Rather than addressing the merits of the lawsuit, parish attorneys have asked the court to restrict the circulation of pleadings and exhibits while the case is pending. Legal experts say the request conflicts with long-standing constitutional principles protecting open courts and a free press.

“Reporting on court filings involving public officials and public funds is core First Amendment activity,” said a constitutional law scholar familiar with Louisiana jurisprudence. “Courts are presumptively open, and prior restraints on reporting are among the most disfavored actions under American law.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that government officials may not suppress or penalize publication of lawfully obtained information about matters of public concern, particularly when the information comes from judicial proceedings.

A dangerous precedent

Media law experts caution that granting such a protective order would set a dangerous precedent, allowing government officials to shield themselves from scrutiny simply by invoking litigation.

“If this motion succeeds, it would signal that officials can use the courts to silence critical reporting instead of answering the substance of the allegations,” said one media analyst. “That undermines public accountability.”

Attorneys opposing the motion argue that restricting coverage would chill speech, interfere with the public’s right to know, and punish a newsroom for aggressive reporting on government conduct.

Access to court records

The lawsuit remains pending. Louisiana state courts do not routinely post civil filings online, and copies of the petition must be requested directly from the East Baton Rouge Parish Clerk of Court. No ruling has been issued on the protective-order request, and no hearing date has been announced.

For journalists and press advocates, the case has implications far beyond Baton Rouge.

“This is about whether the press can freely report on how elected officials use public money,” one First Amendment advocate said. “That question is foundational to democracy—and the answer should never depend on whether the coverage makes those in power uncomfortable.”