After an hour-long hearing this morning, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Jones granted local news station KFOR’s request for a temporary injunction against State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and State Department of Education director of communications Dan Isett.
The ruling means Walters and Isett will be forced to allow KFOR reporters to attend Thursday’s State Board of Education meeting and subsequent press availability in person.
“The court further finds that denying KFOR access to the upcoming OSBE meeting and press conference on Sept. 26 would cause irreparable harm. When constitutional rights — particularly First Amendment rights — are at stake, the harm is inherently irreparable,” Jones wrote in an order filed around 4 p.m. Wednesday.
Jones also noted that he would set a later date for an evidentiary preliminary injunction hearing for the broader issues in the First Amendment litigation, which the TV station and its parent company filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
KFOR and Nexstar Media Group filed the federal lawsuit against Walters and Isett after months of being the only media members routinely relegated to an overflow room during State Board of Education meetings. The KFOR lawsuit was filed against Walters and Isett in both their official and their personal capacities, meaning both men could be found personally liable for damages against the plaintiffs.
In a statement sent shortly after publication of this article, Isett repeated a phrase he has used before to reference KFOR.
“A judge can give KFOR privileges, but that doesn’t keep them from being fake news,” Isett said.
With the State Board of Education set to meet at 9:30 a.m. Thursday, the plaintiffs immediately filed a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, asking the court to order Walters and Isett to allow KFOR’s journalists into Thursday’s meeting room. Jones granted the temporary restraining order Wednesday.
“What perplexes me about this whole thing is why we’re even here,” Jones said during the hearing. “This could have been solved another way. As a public official, you’re not always going to like how they cover you (…) but that, quite frankly, is part of the job.”
Attorneys for KFOR with the local law firm Hall Estill and the national Institute for Free Speech had sought the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prohibit Walters and Isett “from denying plaintiffs access to the room in which Oklahoma State Board of Education meetings are held; denying plaintiffs access to and participation in Walters’ press conferences; and physically obstructing, touching, or impeding plaintiffs’ reporters when they do access the in-person Oklahoma State Board of Education meetings or Walters’ press conferences.”
KFOR reporters have not been allowed to attend the press conferences Walters usually holds after most meetings. In an affidavit, KFOR reporter Dylan Brown, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, described an exchange where Isett placed his hands on him to prevent him from attending the press conference after a meeting July 31. During the exchange, Isett appeared to agree with a statement made by a KFOR photojournalist asking if he felt the station is “not a legitimate news organization.”
In their complaint, KFOR’s attorneys described another incident Brown also discussed in his affidavit:
On Aug. 16, 2024, Superintendent Walters and Isett were walking through the hallways of the State Capitol Complex. Brown and photojournalist, Gage Shaw, who were also present in the hallway, approached Walters. While holding his KFOR-TV microphone, Brown identified himself to defendants as “Dylan Brown with KFOR.” As soon as Brown identified himself, Walters responded, “Oh no, no, no, no, no” and walked away. Simultaneously, Isett approached Brown and Shaw and, placing his hands on Brown, again, stated “No.” Isett then followed Walters.
Although not mentioned in the filings, that incident occurred after Walters held a 20-minute press conference at the State Capitol to discuss a litany of controversies that week, culminating in news that the Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency would be investigating spending at OSDE.
Earlier this week, another KFOR reporter, Spencer Humphrey, posted a screenshot of an email Isett sent in response to Humphrey asking for a statement on the station’s new lawsuit. Isett responded with one sentence.
“We don’t respond to fake news organizations,” Isett said.
Judge: Walters, Isett propose ‘an unworkable standard’
Jones asked numerous questions during the hearing of both KFOR attorney Courtney Corbello and Michael Beason, OSDE’s general counsel. Jones appeared to focus on two main points: whether government officials have the right to restrict news gathering on government property and what standard should be applied to those restrictions.
Corbello argued the First Amendment requires all news outlets have equal access to public forums such as State Board of Education meetings and their subsequent press conferences, making the restrictions imposed on KFOR unlawful. The plaintiffs also stated that the department’s reasoning of the restrictions — declaring KFOR an illegitimate news organization and attempting to point out the reporting staff’s lack of commitment toward journalistic ethics — are discriminatory and unreasonably based on KFOR’s “viewpoint.”
In return, Beason argued that the restrictions were placed on the news outlet because of prior reporting that State Department of Education officials believe to be inaccurate. Beason also refuted Corbello’s claim that the restrictions were based on the station’s viewpoint or editorialization of its reporting on Walters. Instead, Beason at times implied that KFOR’s restrictions were due to limited capacity inside the meeting room and at others said KFOR’s reporting was inaccurate.
“With all due respect (…) there are many unfavorable news reports made about Mr. Walters,” Beason said. “It’s not about a viewpoint, it’s not editorializing. (…) It’s seeking the truth and seeking accurate reporting.”
Beason’s argument drew a sharp rebuke from Corbello.
“I shudder to think that we live in a society where government officials determine under the First Amendment whether reporters are telling the truth or not,” Corbello said.
Jones, in turn, asked Beason if he felt people could disagree about the truth of the same facts.
“In any given situation there are true facts,” Beason said. “We don’t take issue with their editorial stance. We take issue with falsehoods.”
Jones ultimately seemed to agree with Corbello.
“Greenlighting a governmental attempt to restrict access to a limited public forum based on its unilateral determination that a news organization’s reporting is factually untrue amounts to an unworkable standard,” Jones wrote in his order. “Such a standard, indeed, would empower the government to act as the final arbiter of truth, chilling investigative journalism and suppressing dissenting viewpoints.”
(Update: This article was updated at 6:50 p.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 25 to include a statement from Dan Isett.)
