District officials sought to prevent Benjamin Shore and his brother from filing public records requests for one year.

A Camden County judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Cherry Hill Board of Education seeking to prevent a local journalist and his brother from filing public records requests with the school district, finding no evidence that they intended to disrupt district operations.

Superior Court Judge Michael Mikulski rejected the district’s arguments and dismissed the complaint with prejudice July 31, meaning the district cannot refile it. Mikulski cited New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects people from lawsuits targeting constitutionally protected speech, journalism, and public participation in government.

Cherry Hill’s school board sued Shore Investigates, journalist Benjamin Shore, and his brother, Daniel Shore, in February under a controversial provision added to New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA) when the Legislature substantially weakened the law in 2024. The law now allows government agencies to sue people who file records requests with the intent to “substantially interrupt” government operations. Agencies must prove that intent by clear and convincing evidence.

In its lawsuit, the district accused the Shores of submitting “numerous, repeated and vexatious” requests that consumed staff time and substantially interrupted operations. School officials also asked the court to shut down a website Benjamin Shore created to help people submit records requests to the district.

The judge found that Shore Investigates was operating as a news organization and that filing records requests, pursuing public records lawsuits, and publishing the website were protected activities involving matters of public concern.

“Pertinently, Defendants have made approximately eighteen (18) OPRA requests over the course of a year and a half in their journalistic capacity,” Mikulski wrote in her decision. “As Defendants state, ‘this is what reporters do.’ As such, Court finds the first prong of UPEPA to be satisfied.”

Shore Investigates is a free online news outlet focused on local government, law enforcement, and public institutions, including Cherry Hill and its school district.

The Shores submitted about 18 records requests over 18 months. They also sent about 260 emails to district employees and administrators over that period.

District officials argued that responding to the requests and related correspondence required substantial staff time and resources. But Mikulski found that the district had not provided evidence that Shore filed the requests intending to interfere with its work.

“The court finds the amount of time the Board must expend in order to respond to the requestor’s OPRA requests is not a valid reason for its action,” Mikulski wrote. “Rather, it is the Board’s statutory duty as a government agency to fully comply with OPRA requirements.”

The record contained no evidence of ill intent and instead showed that the Shores were willing to work with the district to make their requests less burdensome, the judge found.

The district’s complaint listed requests for videos, legal bills, invoices, copies of other OPRA requests, and records related to Shore’s disputes with the district. It also cited lawsuits Shore filed after the district denied his requests or provided redacted records.

District officials asked the court to prohibit Benjamin Shore, Daniel Shore, and anyone affiliated with Shore Investigates from filing OPRA or common-law records requests with the district for one year.

Officials also sought an order requiring Benjamin Shore to remove a website called the Cherry Hill Public Schools OPRA Request Portal.

The district alleged that the website resembled its official site closely enough to confuse the public. It also argued that requests submitted through the portal could expose the district to legal liability if they were delayed or failed to reach its records custodian.

Shore’s lawyer, CJ Griffin, countered that the portal was free, did not solicit business, and included a disclaimer stating that it was not affiliated with the school district or any government agency.

Mikulski found no factual basis for the district’s claims. She ruled that the disclaimer, which appears in bold letters, made sufficiently clear that the portal was independent of the district.

The Shores sought dismissal under the anti-SLAPP law. The district argued that their activities were not protected.

New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, adopted in 2023, provides an expedited process for dismissing strategic lawsuits against public participation, commonly known as SLAPP suits. Such lawsuits target speech, journalism, and other forms of public participation.

Mikulski found that none of the law’s exemptions applied.

“Here, movants are exercising their First Amendment rights on matters of public concern,” Mikulski wrote.

The judge also found that the district failed to follow the procedures for an expedited OPRA case because it did not file an order to show cause with its initial complaint. Although that omission could have justified a dismissal, Mikulski also considered the substance of the district’s claims.

She concluded that the district had shown only that Shore’s activities allegedly disrupted its operations, but not that he intended to cause that disruption, as the law requires. “Plaintiffs have shown no evidence of any ill-intent of Defendants here,” she wrote.

Mikulski’s ruling is a victory for open government advocates and journalists.

“The judge’s decision recognizes that filing records requests is what reporters do to keep the public informed. But even if my clients weren’t reporters, no one should be hauled into court for seeking public records from their local school board,” Griffin told The Vindicator Tuesday. “Thank goodness New Jersey has a strong anti-SLAPP law to allow folks to fight back against bogus suits that serve only to chill speech.”

Because the Shores prevailed under the anti-SLAPP law, they are entitled to seek reimbursement from the district for reasonable attorney fees and court costs associated with the case.

Benjamin Shore told The Vindicator the lawsuit accomplished something before it was dismissed.

“It chilled our reporting. We paused records requests and held back stories because every new inquiry appeared to carry the threat of further litigation,” he said. That is what it means to report with a target on your back.”

Shore said the court’s July 31 order shows how little evidence supported that school district’s efforts.

“This was not an ordinary disagreement over a records request. The Board used taxpayer-supported litigation to try to prohibit a journalist, an independent newsroom, and a private citizen from filing public-records requests for an entire year. It also asked the court to shut down a free public-records portal created to help residents access their government,” Shore said.

“A public body should not use public resources to pursue claims the court found lacked evidentiary and factual support,” he said. “Taxpayers funded the Board’s decision to bring this case.”