First Amendment Library
ADVANCED SEARCHOKLAHOMA PUBLISHING CO. v. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, et al., 430 U.S. 308 (1977)
- Argued:
- N/A
- Decided:
- March 07, 1977
- Decided by:
- Burger Court, 1976
- Action:
- Reversed. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.
See Opinion tab for full case information.
Majority Opinion
Potter Stewart Thurgood Marshall William Brennan Byron White Warren Burger Harry Blackmun Lewis Powell William Rehnquist John Stevens
Concurring Opinion
No opinions found
Dissenting Opinion
No opinions found
OKLAHOMA PUBLISHING CO.
v.
DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.PER CURIAM.A pretrial order entered by the District Court of Oklahoma County enjoined members of the news media from “publishing, broadcasting, or disseminating, in any manner, the name or picture of [a] minor child” in connection with a juvenile proceeding involving that child then pending in that court. On application for prohibition and mandamus challenging the order as a prior restraint on the press violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma sustained the order. This Court entered a stay pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari. *309 429 U. S. 967 (1976). We now grant the petition for certiorari and reverse the decision below.
A railroad switchman was fatally shot on July 26, 1976. On July 29, 1976, an 11-year-old boy, Larry Donnell Brewer, appeared at a detention hearing in Oklahoma County Juvenile Court on charges filed by state juvenile authorities alleging delinquency by second-degree murder in the shooting of this switchman. Reporters, including one from petitioner’s newspapers, were present in the courtroom during the hearing and learned the juvenile’s name. As the boy was escorted from the courthouse to a vehicle, one of petitioner’s photographers took his picture. Thereafter, a number of stories using the boy’s name and photograph were printed in newspapers within the county, including petitioner’s three newspapers in Oklahoma City; radio stations broadcast his name and television stations showed film footage of him and identified him by name.
On August 3, 1976, the juvenile was arraigned at a closed hearing, at which the judge entered the pretrial order involved in this case.[1] Additional news reports identifying the juvenile appeared on August 4 and 5. On August 16, the District Court denied petitioner’s motion to quash the order. The Oklahoma Supreme Court then denied petitioner’s writ of prohibition and mandamus, relying on Oklahoma statutes providing that juvenile proceedings are to be held in private “unless specifically ordered by the judge to be conducted in public,” and that juvenile records are open to public inspection “only by order of the court to persons having a legitimate *310 interest therein.” Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 10, §§ 1111, 1125 (Supp. 1976).
As we noted in entering our stay of the pretrial order, petitioner does not challenge the constitutionality of the Oklahoma statutes relied on by the court below. Petitioner asks us only to hold that the First and Fourteenth Amendments will not permit a state court to prohibit the publication of widely disseminated information obtained at court proceedings which were in fact open to the public. We think this result is compelled by our recent decisions in Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539 (1976), and Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975).
In Cox Broadcasting the Court held that a State could not impose sanctions on the accurate publication of the name of a rape victim “which was publicly revealed in connection with the prosecution of the crime.” Id., at 471. There, a reporter learned the identity of the victim from an examination of indictments made available by a clerk for his inspection in the courtroom during a recess of court proceedings against the alleged rapists. The Court expressly refrained from intimating a view on any constitutional questions arising from a state policy of denying the public or the press access to official records of juvenile proceedings, id., at 496 n. 26, but made clear that the press may not be prohibited from “truthfully publishing information released to the public in official court records.” Id., at 496.
This principle was reaffirmed last Term in Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, supra, which held unconstitutional an order prohibiting the press from publishing certain information tending to show the guilt of a defendant in an impending criminal trial. In Part VI-D of its opinion, the Court focused on the information covered by the order that had been adduced as evidence in a preliminary hearing open to the public and the press; we concluded that, to the extent the order prohibited the publication of such evidence, “it plainly violated settled principles,” 427 U. S., at 568, citing Cox Broadcasting *311 Corp. v. Cohn, supra; Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333, 362-363 (1966) (“[T]here is nothing that proscribes the press from reporting events that transpire in the courtroom”); and Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367, 374 (1947) (“Those who see and hear what transpired [in the courtroom] can report it with impunity”). The Court noted that under state law the trial court was permitted in certain circumstances to close pretrial proceedings to the public, but indicated that such an option did not allow the trial judge to suppress publication of information from the hearing if the public was allowed to attend: “[O]nce a public hearing had been held, what transpired there could not be subject to prior restraint.” 427 U. S., at 568.
The court below found the rationale of these decisions to be inapplicable here because a state statute provided for closed juvenile hearings unless specifically opened to the public by court order and because “there is no indication that the judge distinctly and expressly ordered the hearing to be public.” We think Cox and Nebraska Press are controlling nonetheless. Whether or not the trial judge expressly made such an order, members of the press were in fact present at the hearing with the full knowledge of the presiding judge, the prosecutor, and the defense counsel. No objection was made to the presence of the press in the courtroom or to the photographing of the juvenile as he left the courthouse. There is no evidence that petitioner acquired the information unlawfully or even without the State’s implicit approval. The name and picture of the juvenile here were “publicly revealed in connection with the prosecution of the crime,” 420 U. S., at 471, much as the name of the rape victim in Cox Broadcasting was placed in the public domain.[2] Under these circumstances, the District *312 Court’s order abridges the freedom of the press in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment is
Reversed.
NOTES
[1] In addition to enjoining publication of the name and picture of the juvenile, the order also enjoined law enforcement officials, juvenile authorities, and prosecution and defense counsel “from disclosing any information or making any comments concerning” the delinquency proceeding pending against the juvenile. Petitioner does not now challenge the restraints on counsel (which were rescinded in a modification of the order on August 5) or on public officials.
[2] In Cox Broadcasting the Court quoted the following description by the reporter of the manner in which the name of the rape victim was revealed to him:
“`[D]uring a recess of the said trial, I approached the clerk of the court, who was sitting directly in front of the bench, and requested to see a copy of the indictments. In open court, I was handed the indictments, both the murder and the rape indictments, and was allowed to examine fully this document. . . . Moreover, no attempt was made by the clerk or anyone else to withhold the name and identity of the victim from me or from anyone else and the said indictments apparently were available for public inspection upon request.'” 420 U. S., at 473 n. 3.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., 535 U.S. 564 (2002)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al., 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
EL VOCERO DE PUERTO RICO (CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL NEWS CORP.), et al. v. PUERTO RICO, et al., 508 U.S. 147 (1993)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
LEATHERS, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES OF ARKANSAS v. MEDLOCK et al., 499 U.S. 439 (1991)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
BUTTERWORTH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, et al. v. SMITH, 494 U.S. 624 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 493 U.S. 182 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
SABLE COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al., 492 U.S. 115 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
THE FLORIDA STAR v. B. J. F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Invasion of Privacy, Press Freedoms
FORT WAYNE BOOKS, INC. v. INDIANA et al., 489 U.S. 46 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Prior Restraint and Review
VIRGINIA v. AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., 484 U.S. 383 (1988)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, 478 U.S. 1 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Press Freedoms, Prior Restraint and Review
SEATTLE TIMES CO., DBA THE SEATTLE TIMES, et al. v. RHINEHART et al., 467 U.S. 20 (1984)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Press Freedoms, Prior Restraint and Review
PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE CO. v. MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
NEW YORK v. FERBER, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF NORFOLK, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Press Freedoms, Speech Harmful to Children
RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al. v. VIRGINIA et al., 448 U.S. 555 (1980)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
GANNETT CO., INC. v. DEPASQUALE, COUNTY COURT JUDGE OF SENECA COUNTY, N. Y., et al., 443 U.S. 368 (1979)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
SMITH, JUDGE, et al. v. DAILY MAIL PUBLISHING CO. et al., 443 U.S. 97 (1979)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Invasion of Privacy, Press Freedoms, Speech Harmful to Children
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION et al., 438 U.S. 726 (1978)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
HOUCHINS, SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA v. KQED, INC., et al., 438 U.S. 1 (1978)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
ZURCHER, CHIEF OF POLICE OF PALO ALTO, et al. v. STANFORD DAILY et al., 436 U.S. 547 (1978)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Cases on Campus
LANDMARK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. VIRGINIA, 435 U.S. 829 (1978)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
NIXON v. WARNER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Invasion of Privacy, Press Freedoms
NIXON v. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES et al., 433 U.S. 425 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Invasion of Privacy
ZACCHINI v. SCRIPPS-HOWARD BROADCASTING CO., 433 U.S. 562 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Invasion of Privacy
NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. et al. v. STUART, JUDGE, et al., 427 U.S. 539 (1976)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Press Freedoms, Prior Restraint and Review
COX BROADCASTING CORP. et al. v. COHN, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Invasion of Privacy, Press Freedoms, Speech Harmful to Children
CANTRELL et al. v. FOREST CITY PUBLISHING CO. et al., 419 U.S. 245 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Invasion of Privacy, Press Freedoms
MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO., DIVISION OF KNIGHT NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. TORNILLO, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
SAXBE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. WASHINGTON POST CO. et al., 417 U.S. 843 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
PELL et al. v. PROCUNIER, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, et al., 417 U.S. 817 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
ALEXANDER et al. v. VIRGINIA, 413 U.S. 836 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. v. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS et al., 413 U.S. 376 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Press Freedoms, Prior Restraint and Review
BRANZBURG v. HAYES et al., JUDGES, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Press Freedoms, Prior Restraint and Review
HOYT et al. v. MINNESOTA, 399 U.S. 524 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
BLOSS et al. v. DYKEMA, 398 U.S. 278 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
CARLOS v. NEW YORK, 396 U.S. 119 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
HENRY v. LOUISIANA, 392 U.S. 655 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
GINSBERG v. NEW YORK, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC. v. CITY OF DALLAS, 390 U.S. 676 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
FELTON et al. v. CITY OF PENSACOLA, 390 U.S. 340 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
I.M. AMUSEMENT CORP. v. OHIO., 389 U.S. 573 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
ROBERT-ARTHUR MANAGEMENT CORP. v. TENNESSEE ex rel. CANALE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL, 389 U.S. 578 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
WHITEHILL v. ELKINS, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, et al., 389 U.S. 54 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
BECKLEY NEWSPAPERS CORP. v. HANKS, 389 U.S. 81 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
CHANCE v. CALIFORNIA, 389 U.S. 89 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
CENTRAL MAGAZINE SALES, LTD. v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 50 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
POTOMAC NEWS CO. v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 47 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
CONNER v. CITY OF HAMMOND, 389 U.S. 48 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
ADAY et al. v. UNITED STATES, 388 U.S. 447 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
BOOKS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 388 U.S. 449 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
KENEY v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 440 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
FRIEDMAN v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 441 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
RATNER et al. v. CALIFORNIA, 388 U.S. 442 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
COBERT v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 443 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
SHEPERD et al. v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 444 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
AVANSINO et al. v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 446 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
CORINTH PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. WESBERRY et al., 388 U.S. 448 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
ROSENBLOOM v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 450 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
SCHACKMAN et al. v. CALIFORNIA, 388 U.S. 454 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
TRALINS v. GERSTEIN, STATE ATTORNEY, 378 U.S. 576 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
BANTAM BOOKS, INC., et al. v. SULLIVAN et al., 372 U.S. 58 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Prior Restraint and Review
TIMES FILM CORP. v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al., 365 U.S. 43 (1961)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Prior Restraint and Review
BUTLER v. MICHIGAN, 352 U.S. 380 (1957)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Speech Harmful to Children
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. POLLAK ET AL., 343 U.S. 451 (1952)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Invasion of Privacy
CRAIG ET AL. v. HARNEY, SHERIFF, 331 U.S. 367 (1947)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
PENNEKAMP et al. v. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331 (1946)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
ASSOCIATED PRESS et al. v. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1 (1945)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
NEAR v. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, COUNTY ATTORNEY, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Press Freedoms, Prior Restraint and Review
UNITED STATES ex rel. MILWAUKEE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PUBLISHING COMPANY v. BURLESON, POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 407 (1921)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
LEWIS PUBLISHING COMPANY v. MORGAN, POSTMASTER IN NEW YORK CITY, 229 U.S. 288 (1913)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Press Freedoms
External Resources:
- Joey Senat, “Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Oklahoma County District Court (1977),” First Amendment Encyclopedia.
Topics: Freedom of Speech & Expression, Freedom of the Press, Invasion of Privacy, Press Freedoms, Prior Restraint and Review, Speech Harmful to Children
Cite this page: APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
This library is a work in progress. See an error on this page? Let us know.