We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned about the integrity of the legal process in the high-profile lawsuit Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni, currently presided over by U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman in the Southern District of New York.

This case has broad implications for free speech, privacy, and the rights of all internet users — yet it appears that Judge Liman’s actions may be compromising the fairness of the proceedings.

Why we're concerned:

Dozens of creators and online users who posted lawful, critical commentary about a public figure (Blake Lively and more) are being subpoenaed — including demands for private information such as bank account data, credit card information, private addresses, activity from before creators even started talking about Blake, and more.

These subpoenas have a chilling effect on free expression and press freedom, raising questions about whether the court is being used to suppress criticism rather than adjudicate real harm.

Repeated procedural decisions and language from the bench appear, to disproportionately favor the plaintiff, Blake Lively, suggesting a lack of judicial neutrality.

Concerns have been raised about potential undisclosed relationships or conflicts of interest with parties aligned with Blake Lively or her legal team.  

The judge was not only shown to have owned T-Mobile stock in his financial filings (T-Mobile owns Mint Mobile, for which Blake's husband Ryan Reynolds is a spokesperson), but the judge also sits on the board of his private family foundation that has raised significant ethical concerns.  

The judge's brother, Doug Liman, is a prominent director in Hollywood, who has worked directly with Blake, and is closely connected Ryan Reynolds and many of the companies that Blake and Ryan are affiliated with, such as Amazon, Warner, and more.   The judge makes investments with his brother in their family foundation, so their finances are intertwined ...

Incredibly, Judge Liman oversees a SECOND major Hollywood case as well, being assigned a case involving Harvey Weinstein, which raises more questions about the judiciary here!  

Whether or not there has been direct misconduct, the appearance of bias alone is enough to warrant recusal under federal ethics guidelines. Judges are expected to avoid even the perception of partiality or bias, especially in cases with profound First Amendment consequences.

This case could set a dangerous precedent — one where public figures use litigation not to seek justice, but to target critics and intimidate them. We ask that Judge Liman recuse himself in the interest of restoring public trust, ensuring due process, and protecting constitutional rights.

We also urge the court to re-examine the scope and basis of the subpoenas issued to non-party content creators.

It is time to restore balance and integrity to this critical case. The public is watching — and so are the principles of democracy and free speech.