In Trump v. O'Brien et al., The WIW Freedom to Write Fund joined in an amicus brief filed in the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.  with 17 other amici consisting of press companies and associations, book publishing companies and associations, and writers' groups.  The case involves a libel suit brought by Donald Trump against an author, Timothy O'Brien, and his publisher.  The book at issue is TrumpNation:  The Art of Being the Donald.  In it, O'Brien presented a great deal of information he had gathered as a reporter for the New York Times covering Trump.  But he chose to use a somewhat unconventional style of presentation characterized by sardonic humor.  Trump responded by suing in New Jersey state court complaining about primarily statements that his net worth is not nearly as great as many would suppose.  He was undeterred by the fact that these statements had previously appeared in the Times and were based on interviews with confidential sources conducted by O'Brien in his capacity as a Times reporter.
 
The question then arose whether Trump could get access in discovery to the sources used by O'Brien, despite the shield laws on the books both in New Jersey and New York.  The trial court ruled that New York law would govern this issue and that the New York shield law would not apply to this case because the because the book's tone meant it is properly treated as "entertainment" rather than "news."  The defendants took an interlocutory appeal to challenge this ruling and WIW joined in the media amicus brief supporting that appeal. 
 
The amicus brief argues first that the trial court's narrow definition of "news" cannot be squared with a line of New York court cases taking a very broad view of what constitutes "matters of public interest" for First Amendment purposes.   It points out the absurd outcomes that would result from treating the same information as "news" or "entertainment" depending on the medium used to deliver it or the tone of the work.  It goes on to argue that even if the trial court's interpretation of New York law were correct, it leads to a result so contrary to the public policy of New Jersey that a New Jersey court should and would choose instead to follow New Jersey's strong policy favoring protection of confidential sources.