A federal judge has allowed a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit against Delaware County, New York, to proceed toward trial after finding that a jury must decide whether officials punished a local newspaper for critical reporting.
Editorial Note
This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice.
The allegations discussed below remain disputed. Decker Advertising Inc., publisher of The Reporter, alleges that Delaware County officials removed the newspaper’s official designation and later restricted employee communications with the press in retaliation for critical reporting.
Delaware County denies retaliating against the newspaper. It argues that the official-newspaper decision was based on publication costs, administrative concerns and changes to the process used for submitting legal notices.
On July 21, 2026, U.S. District Judge Anne M. Nardacci denied competing requests for partial summary judgment. The ruling did not find either side liable. It determined that factual disputes must be decided by a jury.
A long-running dispute between a local New York newspaper and Delaware County government is moving closer to trial after a federal judge concluded that a jury must decide whether county officials unlawfully retaliated against the publication for its reporting.
Decker Advertising Inc., the publisher of The Reporter, alleges that county officials removed the newspaper’s designation as an official county newspaper after years of complaints about its coverage.
The lawsuit also challenges a later directive requiring county employees to route press inquiries through the county attorney rather than speaking directly with reporters.
The county disputes those allegations. Officials maintain that they changed newspapers because The Reporter increased its prices and adopted a submission process that created additional administrative work.
Judge Nardacci concluded that the existing evidence could support more than one reasonable interpretation. A jury could find that the county acted for legitimate financial and procedural reasons. It could also find that dissatisfaction with the newspaper’s reporting substantially influenced the decision.
What Happened on July 21
Both sides asked the court to decide important parts of the lawsuit without a trial.
That procedure is known as summary judgment. A judge may grant summary judgment when the material facts are not genuinely disputed and one party is entitled to prevail under the law.
Judge Nardacci denied both requests in a 31-page memorandum and order filed July 21.
She concluded that the record contained factual disputes that could not properly be resolved by the court at this stage. The motives behind the county’s decisions, the significance of officials’ statements and the effect of the communications directive must instead be evaluated by a jury.
The ruling does not guarantee that The Reporter will win.
It means the newspaper produced enough evidence to keep its retaliation claims alive, while the county produced enough evidence to prevent the court from ruling immediately in the newspaper’s favor.
Who The Reporter Is
The Reporter is a weekly print and digital newspaper based in Delhi, New York, and distributed in Delaware County.
The publication is owned by Decker Advertising Inc., which is controlled by Kim and Randy Shepard. Lillian Browne serves as the newspaper’s editor.
The Reporter describes itself as a longstanding source of local government, court and community reporting. It had published Delaware County legal notices for many years before losing its official designation in 2022.
The lawsuit was filed in December 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The defendants include Delaware County, members of the Board of Supervisors and County Attorney Amy Merklen.
Why an Official Newspaper Designation Matters
An official county newspaper publishes local laws, government notices and other information that must legally be made available to the public.
New York County Law Section 214 generally requires a county board of supervisors to designate at least two newspapers each year for the publication of local laws, notices and other legally required material.
The statute directs officials to consider circulation throughout the county and newspapers associated with the two major political parties, although an independent newspaper cannot be disqualified merely because it does not advocate for a political party.
Official designation can provide a newspaper with an important stream of government-funded advertising revenue.
For a small local publication, that money may help support reporters, printing, distribution and general operations.
The Delaware County contract at issue was reportedly worth approximately $13,000 annually. The financial amount may appear limited compared with a large government budget, but it can be meaningful to a locally owned weekly newspaper.
The County Replaced The Reporter in 2022
In 2022, the Delaware County Board of Supervisors selected the Hancock Herald as an official newspaper instead of continuing The Reporter’s designation.
The Reporter alleges that county officials made the change because they were frustrated with its coverage of local government and public officials.
The county says its decision was based on other considerations, including increased publication prices and a new third-party system that allegedly made the legal-notice submission process more difficult.
The federal court found evidence supporting both possible explanations.
The Reporter had reportedly increased the amount it charged the county and changed its publication system. County officials also had a documented history of criticizing the newspaper’s reporting.
That combination is why the judge concluded that motive cannot be resolved without a trial.
The Newspaper Says Critical Reporting Was the Real Reason
Decker Advertising alleges that criticism of The Reporter’s journalism had been building for years.
County officials had complained about the newspaper’s coverage since at least 2019, according to the court record described in current reporting.
The dispute intensified after Editor Lillian Browne published an article that county officials wanted retracted. Browne issued a correction instead of the requested retraction.
The newspaper argues that the later decision to remove its official status was part of a continuing effort to punish or pressure the publication because officials disliked its reporting.
The First Amendment generally prevents the government from imposing adverse consequences in retaliation for protected speech.
A government entity may choose vendors and manage contracts for legitimate reasons. It may not use those powers to punish a newspaper because its reporting is unfavorable.
The trial will therefore focus heavily on why each official acted.
The County Says Costs and Administrative Problems Drove the Decision
Delaware County argues that it had legitimate reasons to choose another newspaper.
The county says The Reporter significantly increased the amount charged for legal notices.
Officials also objected to a new third-party submission process that allegedly required county employees to perform additional work.
The court acknowledged that a reasonable jury could accept this explanation and conclude that the county would have changed newspapers regardless of The Reporter’s coverage.
The judge noted that county officials had continued designating The Reporter for years despite expressing dissatisfaction with its reporting. That history could support the county’s claim that criticism alone did not cause the 2022 decision.
The county will likely argue at trial that the First Amendment does not require a government to continue using a more expensive or less convenient vendor merely because that vendor also engages in protected journalism.
A 2023 Letter Could Become Important Evidence
The Reporter points to a March 2023 letter signed by multiple county supervisors and department leaders.
The letter reportedly accused the publication of manipulating facts and criticized the manner in which it covered county government.
It also identified the newspaper’s reporting as one reason the county had selected the Hancock Herald as an official newspaper.
Judge Nardacci concluded that a jury could view the letter as evidence of retaliatory intent.
However, she also found that the letter did not conclusively prove that the officials had acted unlawfully one year earlier. Some defendants did not prepare or sign the letter, and its final version referred to more than one reason for changing newspapers.
The trial may therefore examine who wrote the letter, who approved it, what each signer understood and whether it accurately reflected the reasons for the 2022 vote.
A Board Leader Referred to Both Price and the Editor
Another communication may also receive close attention.
Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Tina Molé reportedly told one of The Reporter’s owners that the county changed newspapers because of a dramatic price increase, the amount of work county employees had to perform and Editor Lillian Browne.
The reference to the editor could support the newspaper’s argument that its journalism played a substantial role.
The county may argue that the comment referred to operational disagreements with Browne rather than retaliation against protected reporting.
A jury will need to evaluate the context, credibility and intended meaning of that communication.
The Lawsuit Also Challenges a Communications Directive
The official-newspaper designation is only one part of the lawsuit.
The Reporter also challenges a directive issued by County Attorney Amy Merklen that restricted county employees from communicating directly with the press.
The policy reportedly directed news inquiries through the county attorney.
The county has argued that the directive was intended to reduce litigation risk and ensure that government communications were handled consistently.
The newspaper alleges that the policy was another retaliatory response intended to interfere with its reporting and access to sources.
The court concluded that the motive and effects of the directive also present factual questions for a jury.
The Directive Followed National Attention
The communications restriction was implemented after The New York Times examined Delaware County’s treatment of The Reporter.
The county says the policy was connected to legal concerns, including a public-records request.
The newspaper argues that officials imposed the restriction because they learned that the designation controversy would receive national attention.
Judge Nardacci wrote that a reasonable jury could infer that the anticipated New York Times coverage caused the sudden increase in communications and the introduction of the directive.
She did not rule that retaliation occurred. She concluded that the evidence could reasonably support that finding and therefore could not be resolved through summary judgment.
Why Restricting Employee Contact Can Affect Journalism
Local reporters frequently rely on public employees to understand government operations.
Official spokespeople may provide the government’s approved position. Employees who work directly within departments can offer practical information, explain procedures and identify issues that formal statements overlook.
A policy routing every inquiry through one office can make it more difficult for reporters to obtain timely or detailed information.
It can also discourage employees from speaking about matters of public concern, even when the information is not confidential.
Governments may establish reasonable communications rules. They may protect private records, preserve attorney-client confidentiality and designate official spokespeople.
The constitutional concern becomes stronger when restrictions are imposed because officials dislike a particular newspaper or want to prevent lawful reporting.
The First Amendment Retaliation Claim
To establish First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff generally must show that it engaged in protected speech, suffered an adverse government action and experienced that action because of the protected speech.
The parties do not appear to dispute that The Reporter’s journalism was constitutionally protected.
The county’s removal of its official designation also qualifies as the type of action that could support a retaliation claim.
The central dispute is causation.
The newspaper must show that its reporting was a substantial or motivating factor behind the county’s decisions.
The county may avoid liability by showing that it would have taken the same actions for legitimate reasons even without the newspaper’s critical coverage.
That legal framework explains why evidence involving prices, submission procedures, letters, emails and statements by individual supervisors will matter so much at trial.
The Case Does Not Require the Newspaper to Prove Reporting Was the Only Reason
The Reporter does not necessarily have to prove that hostility toward its journalism was the county’s only motivation.
Government decisions can have multiple causes.
A jury could find that the county had genuine cost concerns while also concluding that officials used those concerns as an opportunity to punish critical coverage.
Under First Amendment retaliation principles, protected activity generally must be a substantial or motivating factor, not the exclusive factor.
The county can defend itself by persuading the jury that it would have made the same decision because of costs and administrative problems regardless of the reporting.
The Lawsuit Names Individual County Officials
The defendants include Delaware County and numerous current or former members of its Board of Supervisors.
The lawsuit also names County Attorney Amy Merklen.
Individual liability may depend on each defendant’s conduct, knowledge and participation.
A supervisor who voted to change newspapers for a legitimate financial reason may be situated differently from an official who explicitly sought to punish the publication for an article.
The court noted that different officials had different connections to the evidence. Some participated in particular letters or communications, while others did not.
The trial may therefore produce different outcomes for different defendants rather than one uniform conclusion applying to everyone.
The Judge Did Not Rule That the County Violated the Constitution
The denial of summary judgment must be interpreted carefully.
The ruling does not mean the court concluded that Delaware County retaliated against The Reporter.
It also does not mean the county proved that all its actions were lawful.
The judge determined that neither side had established a right to judgment based solely on the written record.
When evidence supports competing reasonable conclusions, the role of deciding credibility and motive belongs to a jury.
The county said after the ruling that it disputes all allegations and intends to defend itself vigorously at trial. The Reporter said it welcomes the opportunity to present its evidence to a jury.
No Trial Date Was Identified in the Ruling
The July 21 decision clears a major procedural obstacle, but it does not mean a jury trial will begin immediately.
The court may still need to resolve evidentiary disputes, witness lists, trial motions and scheduling issues.
The parties could also reach a settlement before trial.
As of the latest sources reviewed, a specific trial date had not been publicly identified.
Future docket filings will determine the schedule and which claims and defendants ultimately reach the jury.
Why the Case Matters for Local Newspapers
The dispute occurs during a difficult period for local journalism.
Many community newspapers operate with limited staff and depend on a combination of subscriptions, local advertising and public-notice revenue.
Losing official-newspaper status can reduce income and make it harder to fund government reporting.
That does not give newspapers a permanent right to public contracts.
It does mean that government officials must make those decisions without using financial power to punish lawful criticism.
A county capable of redirecting public-notice revenue can create significant pressure on a small publication even when the dollar amount is modest compared with the overall county budget.
Legal Notices Serve a Public Purpose
Government legal notices are intended to inform residents about laws, hearings, elections, property matters and other official actions.
New York law requires counties to designate newspapers for the publication of local laws and notices.
The system assumes that publication in newspapers of general circulation helps residents receive legally important information.
The choice of newspaper should therefore involve circulation, accessibility, cost and reliability.
Officials should maintain written criteria showing why a publication was selected or removed.
Clear standards can protect taxpayers while reducing the risk that political disagreement influences the process.
Governments May Criticize Newspapers
The First Amendment does not prevent public officials from disputing news coverage.
County officials may request corrections, issue public responses and identify factual errors.
They may explain why they believe reporting was incomplete or unfair.
The constitutional issue is not whether officials criticized The Reporter.
It is whether they used government authority, public money or access restrictions to punish the newspaper for protected journalism.
Officials retain their own speech rights. Those rights do not include the power to impose government consequences solely because a publication refuses to present coverage in the manner officials prefer.
Newspapers Are Not Immune From Business Consequences
Press freedom also does not exempt newspapers from ordinary commercial standards.
A publication may lose a government contract because it charges more, fails to meet deadlines or creates an inefficient process.
A newspaper cannot convert every unfavorable procurement decision into a constitutional violation merely by pointing to previous criticism.
That is why Delaware County’s evidence matters.
If the jury concludes that price and administrative burdens independently justified the change, the county may prevail even if officials strongly disliked The Reporter’s coverage.
The trial will test whether the stated business reasons were genuine, sufficient and consistently applied.
The Communications Policy Could Affect Government Employees
The policy restricting employee contact with reporters may also raise questions beyond the newspaper’s rights.
Public employees do not surrender every First Amendment protection when they accept government employment.
However, governments may regulate employee speech connected to official duties and confidential information.
A broad policy preventing employees from speaking with the press could discourage protected communication about public concerns.
The lawsuit primarily focuses on how the directive allegedly harmed The Reporter’s newsgathering. The broader policy debate concerns whether local governments can centralize communications without creating an environment of secrecy or fear.
Local Government Transparency Depends on More Than Formal Records
Residents can use public-records laws, meeting minutes and official statements to learn about county government.
Those sources are essential but often incomplete.
Journalists also interview employees, attend meetings, compare statements and investigate the practical effects of policy decisions.
When officials restrict informal access, public understanding may become dependent on carefully controlled government messaging.
A communications policy may be justified for certain legal or administrative reasons.
It should still be narrow, written clearly and applied consistently to all news organizations rather than targeting one publication.
What the Jury May Need to Decide
The jury may be asked to determine whether The Reporter’s coverage substantially motivated the loss of its official designation.
Jurors may also consider whether the county would have changed newspapers anyway because of price increases and submission requirements.
They may evaluate whether the 2023 letter reflects the real motivation behind the earlier decision.
The communications directive will require a separate analysis of timing, intent and practical effect.
Jurors may need to decide whether it was a legitimate legal-risk policy or a response intended to obstruct reporting after the controversy attracted outside attention.
The court’s final jury instructions will define the precise legal questions.
What Delaware County Residents Should Watch
Residents should watch for a trial date, pretrial filings and possible settlement discussions.
Witness testimony from supervisors, county employees, newspaper owners and Editor Lillian Browne could clarify how the decisions were made.
Documents showing price changes, legal-notice procedures and internal discussions will also be important.
The public should avoid assuming that every critical statement proves retaliation or that every cost explanation disproves it.
The case turns on motive, participation and whether the county would have acted the same way without the newspaper’s reporting.
What Other Local Governments Should Learn
Counties should establish neutral written standards before awarding official-newspaper status.
Those standards may include circulation, geographic reach, publication frequency, price, reliability, accessibility and technical procedures.
Officials should document how competing publications were evaluated.
When concerns involve inaccurate reporting, governments should address the disputed article separately from procurement decisions.
Combining editorial complaints with contract discussions can create the appearance that public money is being used to influence news coverage.
Communications policies should also be adopted for legitimate operational reasons and applied consistently across media organizations.
What Local Newspapers Should Learn
Newspapers seeking government legal-notice work should maintain transparent pricing and reliable submission systems.
They should preserve communications involving official designations, requests for corrections and statements suggesting political pressure.
Editorial independence does not eliminate the need for accurate reporting.
When an error occurs, a newspaper should correct it clearly while retaining the right to reject demands for a retraction it does not believe the evidence supports.
Local publications should also diversify revenue where possible. Dependence on one government contract can make editorial independence financially vulnerable even when legal protections exist.
How New To Education Supports Public Accountability
New To Education publishes reporting and analysis on educational law, local government, civil rights, public institutions and accountability.
Local journalism plays an important role in education because school boards, county governments and municipal agencies make decisions that affect students, families and public funding.
When government officials are accused of punishing critical reporting, the issue extends beyond one newspaper.
It concerns whether residents can receive independent information about the institutions acting in their name.
Learn more about New To Education:
Key Takeaways
Decker Advertising, publisher of The Reporter, is suing Delaware County and multiple officials over alleged First Amendment retaliation.
The newspaper alleges that the county removed its official-newspaper designation because officials disliked its reporting.
Delaware County says the decision was based on higher prices and a more burdensome legal-notice submission process.
The lawsuit also challenges a directive requiring county employees to route press inquiries through the county attorney.
On July 21, 2026, Judge Anne M. Nardacci denied partial summary-judgment requests from both sides.
The judge did not find either side liable. She concluded that disputed questions involving motive, causation and credibility must be decided by a jury.
A 2023 letter criticizing The Reporter’s coverage could support the newspaper’s retaliation argument, but the court found that it did not conclusively prove liability.
The case could have broader consequences for local journalism, public-notice revenue and government communications policies.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who filed the lawsuit?
Decker Advertising Inc., the company that publishes The Reporter newspaper in Delaware County, New York.
Who are the defendants?
The defendants include Delaware County, members of its Board of Supervisors and County Attorney Amy Merklen.
What does the newspaper allege?
It alleges that county officials removed its official designation and later restricted employee communications with reporters because officials disliked its coverage.
What does Delaware County say?
The county says the newspaper was replaced because of increased publication costs and a more difficult process for submitting legal notices.
What is an official county newspaper?
It is a newspaper selected to publish local laws, notices and other government material that must legally be made public.
How much was the contract reportedly worth?
The official-newspaper arrangement was reportedly worth approximately $13,000 annually.
Did the judge rule that retaliation occurred?
No. The judge found that the evidence could support competing conclusions and must be evaluated at trial.
Why were both summary-judgment motions denied?
Neither party showed that the disputed issues could be resolved as a matter of law without a jury evaluating motive and credibility.
What was the communications directive?
It reportedly instructed county employees to route press inquiries through the county attorney rather than speaking directly with reporters.
When will the trial occur?
A specific trial date was not identified in the sources reviewed for this article.
Final Thoughts
The dispute between Delaware County and The Reporter illustrates how government power can intersect with the fragile economics of local journalism.
The county has legitimate authority to consider price, efficiency and circulation when selecting newspapers for legal notices.
It does not have the authority to withdraw public business merely to punish reporting it dislikes.
The evidence currently supports more than one possible explanation.
The Reporter points to years of official criticism, a letter connecting its coverage to the designation decision and a later restriction on employee communications.
The county points to increased costs, a cumbersome submission process and evidence that it continued using the newspaper for years despite disagreements about its reporting.
A jury must now determine which explanation best reflects what actually motivated the officials involved.
The case matters beyond Delaware County.
Local governments across the country control contracts, access and information that can affect whether small newspapers survive.
Those powers must be exercised through clear and neutral standards.
Local newspapers also must remain accurate, transparent about pricing and accountable when mistakes occur.
Independent journalism does not require governments to agree with reporters.
It requires governments to tolerate criticism without using public authority to silence, punish or financially pressure the press.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on law, education, government accountability and public institutions.
Readers can support this work by sharing our reporting, exploring our educational and professional services or using the support options available through our website.
Related Articles
New York’s Education Oversight Debate: What Happened and Why It Matters
NYC Teacher Says Administrators Changed a Student’s Failing Grade and Retaliated When She Objected
Sources
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York — July 21, 2026 Memorandum-Decision and Order
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyndce/3%3A2023cv01531/141378/259
Times Union — Catskills Newspaper’s Retaliation Case Against Delaware County Heads Toward Trial
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/delaware-county-the-reporter-case-trial-22357038.php
Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic — Decker Advertising Inc. v. Delaware County
https://cornell1a.law.cornell.edu/cases/case.php?case=decker-advertising-inc-v-delaware-county
New York County Law Section 214 — Designation of Newspapers and Official Publications
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/cnt/article-5/214/
New York State Comptroller — Opinion 94-9 on Official Newspaper Requirements
https://www.osc.ny.gov/legal-opinions/opinion-94-9
New York General Construction Law Section 60 — Definition of Newspaper
