WELCOME

"He was essentially being held liable for what he had

Nov. 14, 2018 by Kenneth Newton

"He was essentially being held liable for what he had published," says David Tinsley, Anglin's attorney. "You can't make allegations like that with no evidence of intent and no proof of criminal intent."

The judge also said that he doesn't believe Anglin should be required to disclose his information to journalists or regulators because the information should be protected under the First Amendment. Instead, it's his right to say what he knows and can say without fear of reprisal.

"There are ways forward for him to seek a new trial and the judge's ruling is the one that allows that," says Brian Beaulieu, Anglin's defense attorney, who also represents the plaintiff Edward Snowden.

"He needs to learn the law before he decides to pursue his own case."

But the ruling could be the biggest hurdle that the Supreme Court has faced this summer—and the first opportunity to hear other cases that might overturn the privacy law.

In a previous ruling, the Supreme Court held that privacy laws could be amended to allow the government to keep information about people's online behavior, even when it's not their primary source of information. The high court has consistently upheld similar protections, but the justices have also held that they generally don't apply to law enforcement or other government entities.