Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart
**Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart** is a significant Supreme Court case that addresses the balance between the rights of the press and the necessity of a fair trial. The case arose in response to a high-profile mass murder and sex crime in a small Nebraska town, where details from the defendant’s confession were shared with the media. To protect the accused’s right to an impartial trial, a local court issued a gag order restricting the press from publishing specific details. However, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned this injunction, reinforcing the principle that the Sixth Amendment guarantees an open trial, which includes access to information by the press. The Court emphasized that any restrictions on press freedom should be minimized and that prior restraint is generally impermissible. This ruling has led to practical changes in how courts manage pretrial publicity, such as sequestering juries and closing preliminary hearings to the media. While newspapers continue to challenge certain limitations on their access to information, the case set a precedent that upholds the essential role of the press in the judicial process.
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart
Date: June 30, 1976
Citation: 427 U.S. 539
Issue: Freedom of the press
Significance: The Supreme Court rejected the use of gag orders to protect the rights of those accused of crimes.
This case involved an unusually perverted mass murder and sex crime in a small town in Nebraska. At the preliminary hearing, a confession and note written by the defendant were made available to the press. In an attempt to provide the accused with an impartial, fair trial, the local court issued an injunction against not only the police and attorneys but also the members of the press who were present at the hearing in order to prevent the press from publishing the lurid details contained in the confession and note.
The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the lower court’s gag order. It found that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to an open trial (which means the press has access to the information from the trial) is a long-standing constitutional right that should be balanced against freedom of the press, but balancing should not include prior restraint. When balancing, the lower courts should use the method with the “least means” of disturbing either of the rights (but especially the freedom of the press). One practical result of this case was the increased practice of sequestering juries in dramatic cases and closing preliminary hearings to the press, thereby avoiding the issuance of injunctions that violate the ban against prior restraint. Newspapers continue to object to various aspects of this treatment, but generally the Court has upheld the right of courts to keep certain information out of the hands of the press.