Decker Advertising Inc. v. Delaware County, New York, 765 F.Supp.3d 128

Decker Advertising Inc., publisher of The Reporter, a local newspaper in Delaware County, NY, was for decades designated by the County as an official newspaper for publishing legal notices per New York County Law § 214(2).
In 2022, The Reporter increased its rates after moving to a new automated system and published an article critical of a local justice, which prompted complaints from county officials.
Shortly after, the County Board revoked The Reporter’s designation, citing cost and procedural inconvenience; Decker alleges this was pretext for retaliation against unfavorable reporting.
The Reporter’s designation was given to The Hancock Herald, allegedly without proper evaluation or countywide reach.
After The New York Times reported on the de-designation, the County allegedly issued a directive requiring all County employees to route Reporter inquiries through the County Attorney, further inhibiting Decker’s newsgathering.
Decker sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting First and Fourteenth Amendment violations; defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment retaliation—de-designation	De-designation was motivated by critical reporting (protected speech)	Legitimate reasons: cost, efficiency; de-designation discretionary	Plaintiff sufficiently alleged retaliation for protected speech
First Amendment retaliation—communications directive	Gag directive retaliated for cooperating with NYT, chilled speech	Legitimate litigation protection motive; not a ban, just procedure	Plaintiff plausibly alleged retaliation/concrete harm due to directive
First Amendment prior restraint—directive	Directive was prior restraint hindering access to willing speakers	County’s interest in litigation avoidance justifies directive	Policy plausibly constitutes unconstitutional prior restraint
Equal Protection claim	Gag directive uniquely targeted The Reporter; other papers unaffected	Claim is duplicative of First Amendment retaliation claim	Duplicative; dismissed
Legislative immunity	Board’s de-designation vote was administrative, not legislative	Vote is legislative, entitled to immunity	Legislative immunity does not apply; no immunity for this action
Official capacity claims	Personal and official capacity claims for individuals appropriate	Duplicative of claims against County	Duplicative; official capacity claims dismissed

Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (denial of a government benefit based on protected speech violates the First Amendment)
Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (defense: action would have been taken regardless of protected conduct)
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cnty., Kan. v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (First Amendment protections extend to government contractors)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public employee speech not always protected if made pursuant to job duties)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (First Amendment sometimes protects false statements in public debate)
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (First Amendment requires some protection for falsehoods to safeguard free speech)
Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (public employees’ speech on governmental affairs serves the public interest)
United States v. Nat’l Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (prior restraints on public employees require strong justification)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (public employee speech protected if addressing matter of public concern)