Whether a state court may impose a punitive administrative Death Penalty Sanction against a media defendant reporting on a matter of public concern that eliminates constitutional burdens of proof and allows damages without meaningful appellate review

This case presents multiple constitutional questions of first impression involving the use of a punitive administrative Death Penalty Sanction for small discovery errors to impose liability, bypass burdens of proof, and award punitive damages against a media defendant reporting on a matter of public concern in a suit brought by public figures. The trial court’s entry of a liability-decreeing administrative Death Penalty Sanction eliminated the Plaintiffs’ requirement to prove falsity, fault, or actual malice, and resulted in an award of over $1.4 billion in damages without meaningful appellate review. The questions presented are 1. In actions brought by public figures against media defendants reporting on matters of undeniable public concern, may a state court through an administrative Death Penalty Sanction: (a) judicially decree liability, thereby relieving plaintiffs of their constitutional burdens to prove fault, falsity, and actual malice under the proper evidentiary standards; (b) impose liability on a media defendant for the acts of unrelated third parties; and/or (c) permit the award of punitive damages premised solely on such sanctions. And if so, whether the standards for so doing require a showing of a serious threat to the administration of justice and that no lesser sanctions would suffice. 2. Whether this Court is constitutionally required to independently review the trial record to ensure that constitutional facts were proven—and whether such review is even possible where the record was curtailed by a liability-decreeing administrative Death Penalty Sanction. ii 3. Can a liability-decreeing administrative Death Penalty Sanction judicially decree the validity of a plaintiff’s complaint making the following actionable solely because they were alleged and judicially deemed admitted: (i) opinions otherwise not actionable; (ii) statements alleged to be defamatory that are not in fact defamatory; (iii) causes of action not legally cognizable; (iv) conduct of unrelated third parties; and (v) statements allegedly defamatory but grossly taken out of context.