FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 2025
Appellate Court Issues Emergency Stay in Response to Writ of Mandamus Filed to
Protect Anonymous Free Speech

FRISCO, TEXAS — In a pivotal development for free speech rights in Texas, the Court of Appeals has issued an emergency stay in response to a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed to halt an attempt to unmask an anonymous online speaker behind the “Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower” platform. The appellate court’s intervention underscores the importance of judicial safeguards in protecting First Amendment rights.

The writ was filed on behalf of the Frisco Chronicles Whistleblowers blog in the matter of Jamie Heit v. Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower, a Rule 202 proceeding in Denton County. The central issue is whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202—a pre-suit deposition mechanism—can be used to compel disclosure of anonymous civic commentary.

Mandamus: A Constitutional Check on Premature Disclosure
The Writ of Mandamus asks the appellate court to overturn the trial court’s June 2025 decision that granted Jamie Heit’s Rule 202 petition. The trial court had authorized a deposition to identify the individual(s) responsible for anonymous posts critical of Heit, a limited-public figure.

On July 10, 2025, the appellate court granted the emergency stay pending review of the mandamus petition.

Implications of the Mandamus and Next Steps
The appellate court’s emergency stay temporarily shields the identity of certain individuals and will remain in place until the court of appeals rules on the Writ of Mandamus. What happens next:

• The appellate court will review the legal arguments and determine whether the writ should be granted, thereby vacating Rule 202 petition order outright.
• If the Writ is denied, the deposition may proceed, although further appellate review (including to the Texas Supreme Court) may follow.
• If granted, the case will mark a significant precedent in protecting anonymous speech under Texas law.

Why This Mandamus Matters
“This isn’t just about one blog or one person,” said Steven Noskin, counsel for the anonymous blog. “It’s about whether our courts will uphold the constitutional right to anonymous speech in the face of powerful interests trying to unmask critics without filing suit or meeting their legal burden.”

“Our client is not seeking to avoid accountability,” Noskin continued. “They are asserting the foundational right to speak freely. That right belongs to every concerned citizen—every parent, teacher, or taxpayer who dares to question authority.”

For media inquiries or legal commentary, please contact:

STEVEN NOSKIN, Attorney for Respondent
Email: snoskin@noskinlawfirm.com
Direct: (972) 214-4777
Frisco, Texas

Mr. Noskin may be available for interview or comment upon request.