Appeals court rules against media over access to La Fortaleza press conferences.

The court emphasized that litigants cannot challenge an administrative process they never attempted to use.

By THE STAR STAFF

A Puerto Rico appellate court has overturned a February ruling that barred the government from requiring journalists to present a Department of State press credential to attend press conferences at La Fortaleza, concluding that the trial court acted prematurely and without following required procedures and that the dispute amounted to little more than a disagreement with the requirement to obtain a press certification.

The case arose after the Center for Investigative Journalism (Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, or CPI) and two of its reporters, Luis J. Valentín Ortiz and Noel Algarín Martínez, were denied access to press conferences held at La Fortaleza on Dec. 14 and Dec. 16, 2025. Government staff informed them they could not enter because they did not possess a press certification issued by the Puerto Rico Department of State.

On Dec. 23, CPI filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment and both preliminary and permanent injunctions, arguing that the certification requirement violated the constitutional right to freedom of the press. The journalists contended that the Department of State’s press certification was never intended to determine who may gather news or attend official press conferences, but was instead created under the Vehicle and Traffic Act, Law 22‑2000, to identify journalists eligible for special parking permits.

CPI maintained that prior to 2025, its journalists had never been asked to present such a certification to access La Fortaleza or cover government press events. The organization argued that conditioning access to press conferences on the certification effectively barred its reporters from questioning public officials and gathering information on matters of public interest, causing irreparable harm.

On Feb. 23 of this year, the Court of First Instance sided with the journalists. The trial judge denied the government’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and issued a declaratory judgment finding that the Department of State press certification is not a valid mechanism for determining who may attend press conferences convened by the governor or other officials. The court also issued a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the government from requiring CPI journalists to present the certification as a condition for access, concluding that the requirement exceeded statutory authority and infringed on freedom of the press.

The government appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by granting sweeping relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, allowing discovery, or making findings of fact. The government further argued that the lawsuit failed to state a valid constitutional claim and that the court applied the wrong legal standard when evaluating the certification requirement.

In a decision issued this week, the appellate court agreed with the government and reversed the lower court’s ruling. The panel emphasized that injunctions are extraordinary remedies that require strict procedural safeguards. While a preliminary injunction may be issued to preserve the status quo, a permanent injunction can only be granted after a full adjudication on the merits, including an opportunity for both sides to present evidence.

The appellate court found that the trial court improperly resolved the entire case summarily after denying the government’s motion to dismiss, without holding a hearing or trial. By doing so, the lower court deprived the government of the opportunity to challenge the journalists’ claims with evidence and bypassed the requirement that the party seeking injunctive relief bear the burden of proof.

In its analysis, the appellate court also reviewed existing precedent concerning press credentials and access to government facilities. It noted that the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has previously held that denial of a Department of State press certification does not, by itself, restrict freedom of the press, as the certification was created for limited administrative purposes. The court also cited recent federal case law upholding credentialing requirements for access to nonpublic government forums, so long as the rules are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.

The appellate court’s ruling does not resolve whether the certification requirement is ultimately constitutional. Instead, it sends a clear message that such questions must be decided following proper procedures, with a developed factual record. The case is expected to return to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

Addressing the remaining claims of error, the appellate court agreed with the government that the lawsuit amounted to little more than a disagreement with the requirement to obtain a press certification, which by itself does not constitute a plausible constitutional violation. The court emphasized that litigants cannot challenge an administrative process they never attempted to use.