Gag orders
Gag orders are legal restrictions imposed by judges to prevent the public disclosure of information related to ongoing court cases. These orders serve to protect the integrity of legal proceedings, as they help mitigate the risk of media influence and prevent the dissemination of potentially misleading or sensationalized information. Gag orders are particularly common in high-profile cases, where the media attention can be intense, and they limit communication not only for attorneys but also for witnesses, law enforcement personnel, and other participants in the trial. By restricting access to case details, judges aim to safeguard the rights of all parties involved and ensure a fair trial process. Violations of gag orders can lead to contempt of court charges, underlining the seriousness of these directives. Notable examples of gag orders include their application in the Scott Peterson murder trial and a case involving former President Donald Trump, highlighting their relevance in both criminal and high-stakes legal contexts. Overall, gag orders are a tool used by the judiciary to maintain the confidentiality and fairness of legal proceedings amidst the pressures of public and media scrutiny.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Gag orders
SIGNIFICANCE: Gag orders help courts to conduct their business without having information relating to cases be improperly released to the public. Judges implement the orders to protect the actors in the cases from being overwhelmed by the media and to protect the cases themselves from being tainted by false or exaggerated information that finds its way into the news.
Courts and judges impose gag orders during trials to limit the information presented to the public about court proceedings. Such orders are most commonly used in high-profile cases to limit information access by the media to actual court proceedings, case evidence, and testimony. Gag orders also restrict the access of jury members to information about their trials when they are not sequestered.
Gag orders are imposed not only on attorneys and their staffs but also on witnesses and potential witnesses, law-enforcement officers, and any other persons who participate in court proceedings. Orders are imposed to make sure there are no leaks of unauthorized material to the press or public. If only attorneys were under the orders, they might speak with staff members who, in turn, could release information if they were not also covered by the orders. Any person who violates a gag order can be held in contempt of court and punished as a result.
An example of a high-profile case in which a gag order was imposed was the California trial of Scott Peterson for the murder of his wife and her unborn child that concluded with Peterson’s conviction in December 2004. That trial was subjected to saturation media coverage, and the presiding judge in the case imposed a gag order throughout the full duration of Peterson’s trial. The order was imposed during the preliminary stages of the trial to protect ongoing investigations and to protect witnesses and others presenting testimony.
In 2023, the judge presiding over United States v. Trump issued a broad gag order limiting the defendant, former president Donald Trump, and his attorneys from making comments that targeted court personnel, the prosecutor, or potential witnesses in the federal government's case. When Trump appealed the gag order, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld but narrowed it.
Bibliography
Chermak, Steven M. Victims in the News: Crime and the American News Media. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1995.
Chiasson, Lloyd, ed. The Press on Trial: Crimes and Trials as Media Events. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1997.
Strickland, Ruth Ann. "Gag Orders." Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, 2 July 2024, firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/gag-orders/. Accessed 3 July 2024.
Surette, Ray. Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice. 2d ed. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1998.