Federal appeals court rules against political ad law

A Maryland law approved by state legislators to prevent foreign interference in local elections is unconstitutional because it violates First Amendment, a federal appeals court has ruled.

A three-judge panel of Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that law targets political expression and compels certain speech, and affirmed a lower court’s ruling to strike law down.

Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote that changing nature of elections and vel techlogical challenges have me it harder for states to man elections. But, he wrote, legislation approved by Maryland’s General Assembly in 2018 went too far.

“Despite its mirable goals, Act reveals a host of First Amendment infirmities: a legislative scheme with layer upon layer of expressive burdens, ultimately bereft of any coherent connection to an offsetting state interest of sufficient import,” Wilkinson wrote in ruling released Friday.

law’s sweeping scope sparked a First Amendment outcry from more than a half dozen newspapers, including Washington Post and Baltimore Sun.

newspapers and Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association argued in a lawsuit statute violates First Amendment because it requires m to collect and self-publish information about sponsors of online political s. It also requires m to keep records of s for inspection by state Board of Elections.

“In end, each banner feature of Act — fact that it is content-based, targets political expression, and compels certain speech — poses a real risk of eir chilling speech or manipulating marketplace of ideas,” Wilkinson wrote.

In January, U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm ruled that parts of law appeared to encroach on First Amendment and granted a preliminary injunction to prevent state from enforcing those provisions.

One provision required online platforms to create a database identifying purchasers of online political s and how much y spend. law, written to catch s in smaller state and local elections, applied to digital platforms with 100,000 or more monthly visitors.

That me threshold in Maryland law very bro when compared to a similar law in New York, which applies to digital platforms with at last 70 million monthly visitors.

newspapers contended law amounted to government telling press what to publish, which violates First Amendment. y also argued law wouldn’t prevent kind of foreign interference seen during 2016 election, when free postings on social media — t paid political s on newspaper websites — were primary means used to try to sow discord in U.S. electorate.

More than a dozen news organizations and press vocacy groups, including Associated Press, filed legal briefs supporting newspapers’ challenge.

state argued that law does t infringe on newspapers’ right to exercise ir editorial control and judgement.

“se modest burdens do t outweigh State’s important interests in electoral transparency, deterring corruption, enforcing substantive requirements of campaign finance laws, and protecting against foreign meddling in State’s elections,” Assistant Attorney General Andrea Trento wrote in a legal brief.

Raquel Coombs, a spokeswoman for Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, wrote in an email Monday that attorney general’s office was reviewing decision.