Judge denies Campos' restraining order request against KRIS TV, city of Corpus Christi
City Councilwoman Sylvia Campos earlier this month took legal action against KRIS TV and the city of Corpus Christi following publications of material about a medical incident she experienced on March 4 that became the subject of an employee grievance.
The situation, as described in a summary of the investigation from the city's human resources department, had made the employee feel uncomfortable and disrespected.
The summary shows that human resources recommended limiting how Campos interacts with city staff, saying Campos should meet with staff through videoconferencing when possible and that more than one staff member attend if a meeting is in person.
The Caller-Times is not describing Campos' medical issue in greater detail because of the sensitive nature of the topic.
Court documents filed by Campos' attorney, Matt Manning, describe Campos as experiencing 'a medical event of a highly sensitive, embarrassing nature for which she had previously sought and requested treatment' after a meeting with City Manager Peter Zanoni.
The broadcast story, and the statement subsequently posted by city officials responding to the KRIS TV story, disclosed 'private details of Petitioner's health information,' Manning asserts in records as part of an argument to grant the temporary restraining order.
In his April 8 denial of a temporary restraining order, County Court at Law 4 Judge Mark Woerner wrote that Campos had 'failed to meet the necessary burden to warrant injunctive relief.'
In addition to the temporary restraining order, Campos had also initially requested an injunction, as well as taking depositions.
While an injunction would likely not be sought or granted, there is work underway to request a hearing on a petition for taking depositions, Manning said April 16.
The petition, if granted, would allow Campos' representation to take depositions from station and municipal staff to explore potential claims against the city, KRIS TV or both.
While city officials and KRIS TV representatives declined comment on the denial of the temporary restraining order, court records shed light on their positions.
Among arguments that had been made in court filings against Campos' requests were First Amendment questions, as well as the length of time the material had already been within public view.
Although Campos had taken legal action as a private citizen, court filings against the temporary restraining order pointed out that Campos is generally thought to have less privacy because of her position as a councilwoman elected to her post.
Manning has contended in records that the KRIS 6 publication 'had no bearing on Ms. Campos' fitness to serve or a substantial nexus to the communication issue with City staff; and publication of such fact stood only to embarrass her.'
In an editorial posted April 3, KRIS TV senior director of local media content Jim Bob Breazeale wrote that what made it become a 'private matter into a newsworthy one was its impact on public resources, government operations, and proposed changes to how an elected official interacts with staff.'
After the station's story publication March 28, the city posted a statement on its site the same day that officials said was needed to clarify misinformation.
As part of the statement, it described the lodged complaint as 'behavior that is grossly inappropriate in a professional setting, even assuming that a medical incident explains what initially occurred in the conference room.'
Earlier this month, city officials told the Caller-Times that the city had been 'careful to avoid violating anyone's potential privacy rights,' and denied that the municipality had 'unduly injured a person's reputation.'
The response filed by the city, submitted by attorney Brian Miller on its behalf, described Campos' pleadings as 'unclear whether she asserts a defamation claim, an invasion-of-privacy claim, both, or neither.'
The incident couldn't be considered as a 'purely personal matter,' Miller added in the city's response, 'because City employees witnessed various parts of the incident.'
Miller noted that Campos had provided a statement for the KRIS TV story, as well as statements made in her court filings, which he asserted provided more medical information than the city's statement.
He added that by attaching the KRIS TV story and the city's response as part of the legal documents, 'Campos has ensured public availability of the complained-of story and statement,' and noted that Campos had 'not sought injunctive relief against the Corpus Christi Caller-Times despite the newspaper twice mentioning more about Campos' medical condition than the City's statement.'
In the KRIS 6 bench brief, attorneys with law firm Haynes & Boone LLP wrote that a temporary restraining order would have compelled 'KRIS to remove truthful reporting related to her interactions with the City Manager and his staff.'
The document states that although Campos 'asserts that information in the KRIS story (and the City's statement) is harmful to her reputation—alluding to a claim for defamation—her potential claim appears to be one for invasion of privacy,' but did not plead either.
Defamation claims fail 'because she has not alleged any statement made in the KRIS story is false—just that the statement in question is harmful, which she equates with being defamatory.'
'KRIS provided only the minimum amount of information about her medical condition,' KRIS TV's brief states, adding that the information was necessary to provide enough context for the story.
There's an issue, also, for restraint on the First Amendment, according to its brief, which would 'compel KRIS to change its website and social media to take down speech with which Petitioner disagrees.'
More: Corpus Christi rally attendees urge US Rep. Michael Cloud to attend town hall
More: Corpus Christi councilwoman's legal action shifts from federal to state courts
More: Corpus Christi councilwoman takes legal action against broadcast station, city
This article originally appeared on Corpus Christi Caller Times: Here's what may be next in legal action against Corpus Christi, KRIS TV
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Colbert's Cancellation Puts Late-Night TV in Apocalypse Mode
Thursday's episode of CBS's The Late Show with Stephen Colbert opened with the host turning in his desk chair and appearing startled to see viewers he's been entertaining for the past decade: 'Oh hey, everybody,' he greeted them, with the kind of self-conscious folksiness that has defined his post-Colbert Report persona. But the bit prefaced a bombshell. Colbert revealed that he'd just been told that his show would end in May 2026. A chorus of boos reverberated through the studio audience. Colbert matched their energy: 'Yeah, I share your feelings!' Moreover, the host explained, 'It's the end of The Late Show on CBS. I'm not being replaced. This is all just going away.' Running down a list of thank-yous, he sounded both mournful and characteristically magnanimous: 'It is a fantastic job. I wish somebody else was getting it.' By the time the announcement aired, the news had been ricocheting around the media for hours, the rare entertainment story that merited push notifications from major publications and timely reactions from high-profile politicians. One of the latter was Elizabeth Warren, who fired off a scorching social media post. 'CBS canceled Colbert's show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $16M settlement with Trump—a deal that looks like bribery,' the senator wrote. 'America deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons.' The timing of The Late Show's demise is indeed concerning, and if the lawsuit did influence the network's decision to can Colbert—a perennial Trump critic—the implications for free speech in cultural commentary as well as in comedy are nothing short of terrifying. Still, as that story develops, it's also worth acknowledging what we know for sure: The end of The Late Show is the biggest nail yet in the coffin of a dying late-night talk show format. Senator Warren is hardly alone in making the connection between Colbert's firing and Paramount's settlement with the President. To summarize the facts behind the furor: On July 1, Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to settle Trump's lawsuit alleging that CBS's flagship news magazine 60 Minutes edited an October 2024 interview with then-VP and presidential candidate Kamala Harris with the aim of persuading viewers to vote for her. Because the suit was widely seen as baseless, with legal experts and Paramount itself lining up to insist it had no merit, the news of the network's capitulation sent shockwaves through the media. As First Amendment expert Amy Kristin Sanders told TIME earlier this month: 'CBS selected clips from the interview that they thought would be the best to inform their audience—a very common journalistic practice… It's been recognized by the Supreme Court as the process of editorial discretion or editorial decision making and it's protected by the First Amendment.' It didn't escape widespread notice, either, that Paramount's concession coincided with the company's merger with David Ellison's Skydance Media, for which it will need the federal government's approval. This was the aspect of the settlement that seemed to most offend Colbert, who returned from a summer hiatus on Monday with some strong words in criticism of what he described as Trump's 'nuisance lawsuit': 'As someone who has always been a proud employee of this network, I am offended. And I don't know if anything will ever repair my trust in this company—but just taking a stab at it, I'd say $16 million would help,' the host quipped at the top of his monologue. 'I believe that this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles—it's big fat bribe.' To hear Paramount and CBS execs tell it, Colbert's speech had nothing to do with The Late Show's cancellation. 'This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night,' they maintained. 'It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.' For his part, commenting on Truth Social Friday morning, the President further inserted himself in the narrative. 'I absolutely love that Colbert' got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings,' Trump wrote. 'I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. Has even less talent than Colbert!' Regardless of what the full story might be—and of any disagreement one might have with POTUS's estimation of Colbert or skepticism one might harbor that he possesses inside knowledge of Kimmel's fate—both statements capture the ominous outlook for late night in general. Network late-night shows have been in ratings freefall for years now, with culprits ranging from the rise of streaming to the supremacy of social video platforms among the young adults who could once be counted on to tune in at midnight to the long pandemic hiatuses and subsequent socially distanced lockdown comebacks that broke many viewers of a nightly habit. This shift has manifested, over the last few years, in broadcasters cutting corners, from NBC snipping the Friday installment of Jimmy Fallon's Tonight Show to CBS scrapping The Late Late Show after the departure of James 'Carpool Karaoke' Corden. It has also led to conservative decision-making in the late-night realm; as nice as it has been to see Jon Stewart back on The Daily Show every Monday, his return was basically a tacit admission that the onetime cultural juggernaut could not survive without him. And it has accelerated despite such experiments in cultivating Gen Z audiences as NBC's A Little Late with Lilly Singh, whose host made her name on YouTube, and CBS's own Late Late Show replacement After Midnight, helmed by 31-year-old comedian Taylor Tomlinson—both canceled after less than two years on the air. The thing is, as many commentators have already pointed out, by the diminished standards of network late night in 2025, Colbert is having a good year. He's beating his broadcast competitors, Kimmel and Fallon, in the ratings. Just this week, The Late Show scored yet another Emmy nomination (even as the TV Academy snubbed late night's most promising debut in ages: Netflix's Everybody's Live with John Mulaney). At a moment when late-night programs' presence on the internet is considered a crucial indicator of their brand value and cultural impact, it boasts nearly 10 million YouTube subscribers and has recently gone viral on TikTok with interviews of such Gen-Z-relevant figures as Zohran Mamdani (3.9 million views) and Megan Stalter (1.8 million views). Not that Colbert, despite his vocal opposition to Trump, is some kind of outspoken lefty. When Mamdani appeared alongside his also-progressive opponent-slash-ally, Brad Lander, in advance of June's New York City mayoral primary, Colbert hastened to clarify: 'I am not endorsing either one of you.' Then he grilled Mamdani with centrist criticisms of the candidate's embrace of democratic socialism and support for Palestinians. All of which is to say that, within the realm of broadcast late night, Colbert is an outlier only insofar as he's doing better than the competition. And yet The Late Show—which has been airing for nearly 32 years, originally under the envelope-pushingly weird leadership of David Letterman—is the first of the three big network late-night dynasties to be canceled. When it goes dark next May, only Kimmel and Fallon will remain in the 11:35 timeslot. Even if you're convinced that Trump's preferences are weighing on every entertainment exec's every programming choice, don't be surprised if 2016's hair-ruffle heard 'round the world doesn't save Fallon, who has been trending at the bottom of the heap with roughly half as many viewers as Colbert. Whatever sealed The Late Show's fate, the result is an acceleration of late night's demise from slow decline to full-on apocalypse mode. Because for a company of Paramount's or NBCUniversal's or ABC parent Disney's size and vulnerability—given an ailing entertainment industry—every decision is ultimately financial. That would certainly include any decision based on the 'challenging backdrop in late night' (I assume that since the statement explicitly disputes that 'the show's performance' and 'content' played any role, this vague turn of phrase refers to the expense of making The Late Show, the outlook for future seasons, or both). It would also include any decision made in hopes of appeasing the Trump administration. What is the Skydance merger, after all, but a financial arrangement aimed at improving Paramount's financial prospects? None of these factors are mutually exclusive. Nor would a 'purely financial' choice to end The Late Show, thereby eliminating one of vanishingly few outlets for political commentary, make its cancellation any less destructive to the discourse. The bottom line is: If it can happen to Stephen Colbert, it can happen to anyone—and might well happen to everyone, with effects that are sure to extend beyond the realm of TV comedy.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Judge blocks Washington State law requiring Catholic priests to report abuse, even if disclosed in confession
WASHINGTON — A federal judge blocked Washington State Friday from enforcing a law that would require Catholic priests to report child abuse — even when disclosed in a confessional — or face nearly a year of jail time. Tacoma US District Chief Judge David G. Estudillo stayed the law that threatened clergy with a $5,000 fine and up to 364 days in prison for not disclosing child abuse and neglect heard during confessions. The legislation, SB 5375, was signed by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson in May and would have taken effect July 27. In 25-page order, Estudillo — appointed to the federal bench by former President Joe Biden — determined the law was likely unconstitutional and violated First Amendment protections allowing for the free exercise of religion. 'The State arguably could have chosen a less restrictive means of advancing its interest in protecting children from abuse and neglect by adding members of the clergy to the list of mandated reporters while also permitting a narrow exception for the confessional, as approximately 25 other states have done,' he wrote. 3 A federal judge blocked Washington State on Friday from enforcing a law that would require Catholic priests to report child abuse — even when disclosed in a confessional — or face nearly a year of jail time. Emanuele Capoferri – 'Ultimately, Washington's failure to demonstrate why it has an interest of the highest order in denying an exemption to clergy while making such exemptions available to other professionals who work with underserved children … is likely fatal to SB 5375.' The Catholic Church views confession as among the holiest of activities and instructs priests to uphold their sacred obligation by keeping such disclosures confidential — on pain of excommunication. 'This ruling confirms what has always been true: In America, government officials have no business prying into the confessional,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of the religious freedom legal nonprofit Becket, which represented the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle. 3 The legislation, SB 5375, was signed by Washington State Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson in May and would have taken effect July 27. AP 'By protecting the seal of confession, the court has also safeguarded the basic principle that people of all faiths should be free to practice their beliefs without government interference.' Archbishop Paul D. Etienne, Bishop Joseph J. Tyson and Bishop Thomas A. Daly sued Ferguson May 29 and were represented by Becket, the First Liberty Institute and lawyers for WilmerHale. The US Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division sought to intervene in that lawsuit on the side of the diocese June 23. 3 The Catholic Church views confession as among the holiest of activities in the life of a believer and instructs priests to uphold their sacred obligation by keeping everything confidential — or face excommunication from the religious body. UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images 'Laws that explicitly target religious practices such as the Sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church have no place in our society,' Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said at the time. 'The Justice Department will not sit idly by when States mount attacks on the free exercise of religion.' 'We look forward to protecting Washington kids from sexual abuse in the face of this 'investigation' from the Trump administration,' Ferguson responded to local outlet KIRO 7 at the time.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
San Angelo residents now able to apply for FEMA assistance after Texas flooding
President Trump has officially added Tom Green County to the Major Disaster Declaration for Individual Assistance Support from FEMA, according to a release from U.S. Rep. August Pfluger's office. On Friday, Pfluger, R-San Angelo, announced that Tom Green and San Saba counties have been added to the list that now includes Burnet, San Saba, Tom Green, Travis, and Williamson Counties for Individual Assistance. Kendall, Kimble, Menard, and San Saba Counties were also added for Public Assistance, including direct Federal assistance. If you have been impacted by the floods, visit the FEMA website to request support at San Angelo Mayor Tom Thompson said the efforts of the citizens submitting flood survey's over the past six days have paid off. "Residents of San Angelo may now be eligible to apply for individual assistance through FEMA," Thompson said. "This IA declaration will also potentially open up additional federal recovery funding programs for our citizens and businesses. "On behalf of the City, I want to sincerely thank every person who completed a disaster assessment and every volunteer who stepped up to help. This is a great step forward towards the road of recovery for our community. We will continue to share recovery program information updates as they become available. To every citizen of San Angelo—you should be proud of what you've accomplished." Tom Green County Judge Lane Carter said the efforts in formulating the data needed from the citizens are finally coming to fruition. "We owe a huge thanks to Congressman August Pfluger and his office for assisting with this and moving the ball down the field," Carter said. "We owe a tremendous amount of thanks to the volunteers who assisted our citizens in this effort. The recovery efforts are one step at a time, but at this rate, we will overcome." In a special meeting held by the city council on Thursday afternoon, Shane Kelton Executive Director of Public Work with the city said there were 1,520 iSTAT Damage Surveys were submitted. He said 705 homes had minor damage, 463 with major damage and 58 homes were considered a total loss. More: Police, City of San Angelo issue order of restricted areas due to flooding More: San Angelo pets in need after historic flood This article originally appeared on San Angelo Standard-Times: Tom Green County residents can now apply for FEMA flood assistance
