Gag orders and First Amendment rights – Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Perhaps the most talked-about gag orders in 2024 were those against former president (and current presidential candidate) Donald J. Trump. New York State Supreme Court Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over theNew York v. Trumphush money criminal trial, issued an order limiting Trump from making statements or directing others to make statements about potential witnesses, the district attorney, employees of the district attorneys office, family members of the district attorney, jurors, or prospective jurors. This came after the former president made numerous statements the judge considered inflammatoryand was givenseveral warnings to stop commenting on the case.
Trumps legal team argued this broad gag order violates his right to engage in political speech on matters of public concern. Judge Merchan countered that the statements were necessary to preserve the administration of justice, and supporters of the order contend the gag order was narrowly tailored and justified under the circumstances.
Judges commonly use gag orders to limit the speech of other trial participants, not just the former president and presumptive party nominee. Judges sometimes issue gag orders that prevent trial participants from making statements outside the court about the underlying legal proceedings or other matters before the court, in order to minimize harm from pervasive pre-trial publicity or to ensure litigants receive fair judicial proceedings. However, sometimes judges issue gag orders even against the media or other parties not before the court. In any of these instances, gag orders raise important First Amendment questions.
The most suspect gag orders are those levied against the press. The U.S. Supreme Court explained inNebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976) that gag orders against the press are prior restraints on speech what Chief Justice Warren Burger called the most serious and least tolerable infringements on First Amendment rights.
The case involved the murder trial of a man who allegedly killed six members of a family in the small town of Sutherland, Nebraska. Trial judge Hugh Stuart issued a gag order limiting the press from reporting on several aspects of the case, including:
Whether the defendant had confessed to the police.
Statements that the defendant had made to others.
The contents of a note that the defendant had written the night of the crime.
Certain aspects of medical testimony at the preliminary hearing.
The identity of the victims of an alleged sexual assault committed before the killings. (It also prohibited reporting on the exact nature of the order.)
The press challenged the gag order as an impermissible prior restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed the gag order was too broad. It held that before issuing a gag order, a judge should consider less speech-restrictive alternatives, such as changing the venue or location of the trial, postponing the trial, questioning potential jurors during voir dire (the jury selection process), or making emphatic and clear jury instructions.
As the Court explained, these alternatives could lead to judicial proceedings sensitive to a criminal defendants fair-trial rights, without restricting speech like the gag order that Judge Stuart issued.
We cannot say on this record that alternatives to a prior restraint on petitioners would not have sufficiently mitigated the adverse effects of pretrial publicity so as to make prior restraint unnecessary, the Courtwrote. Reasonable minds can have few doubts about the gravity of the evil pretrial publicity can work, but the probability that it would do so here was not demonstrated with the degree of certainty our cases on prior restraint require.
Nebraska Press Association thus erects a high barrier to gag orders against reporters, particularly in criminal cases. Subsequent courts generally have required the government to show that any requested gag order is narrowly tailored and necessary to avoid a clear and present danger to the fair administration of justice. While not always using the term gag order, the rule fromNebraska Press Association in effect means such an order against the media is constitutional only if it meets strict scrutiny the highest form of judicial review.
As constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinskyhas observed, the decision has virtually precluded gag orders on the press as a way of preventing prejudicial pretrial publicity.
While strict scrutiny is the high standard used to evaluate gag orders against the press, there is far less consistency in American jurisprudence on how to evaluate gag orders against attorneys and trial participants. Some courts still apply exacting scrutiny to such gag orders even against attorneys and trial participants. However, many courts use a much less demanding standard.
That inconsistency is perhaps understandable given the Supreme Court has never decided a First Amendment case directly involving a gag order on an attorney or trial participant, unlike with gag orders against the media. Attorneys are considered officers of the court and are therefore subject to greater judicial control. Likewise, trial participants also are more under the control of the court than the reporting press.
The Court did rule inGentile v. State Bar of Nevada (1993) on whether a criminal defense attorney could be subject to professional discipline for statements made at a press conference months before trial. Attorney Dominic Gentile, in order to combat negative pretrial press coverage of his client, contended his client was innocent and that the real culprit in the case was likely a police officer.The Nevada Bar sought to discipline Gentile for violating a rule of professional conduct that prohibited lawyers from making public statements about active litigation that have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the underlying court proceedings.
All gag orders are not only prior restraints but content-based restrictions on speech. As such, they should be subject to rigorous review and must be narrowly drawn.
This substantial likelihood standard is often known as the Gentile standard. InGentile, a sharply divided Court upheld the constitutionality of the Nevada Bars professional conduct rule even as it ultimately ruled in favor of Gentile, finding he reasonably could have believed his comments were justified under the rules safe harbor exception allowing lawyers to make statements to counter negative pretrial publicity against their clients. The Court held the safe harbor provision was too vague, and that the bar therefore could not discipline Gentile.
As mentioned, some courts apply a very high standard for all gag orders. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuitinvalidated a broad gag order issued by a federal district court in the criminal trial of sitting Rep. Harold Ford from Memphis, Tennessee, back in 1987. Ford faced mail and bank fraud charges, and the judge issued a broad gag order prohibiting Ford from discussing the merits of the case. The order even prohibited him from makingany statements about the trial, including an opinion of or discussion of the evidence and facts in the investigation or case.
The Sixth Circuit wrote inUnited States v. Ford (1987) that such broadly based restrictions on speech in connection with litigation are seldom, if ever, justified. It also explained that it is true that permitting an indicted defendant like Ford to defend himself publicly may result in overall publicity that is somewhat more favorable to the defendant than would occur when all participants are silenced. This does not result in an unfair trial for the government, however.
Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit held such gag orders are justifiable only if the government can show public comments about the trial pose a clear and present danger to the fair administration of justice.
Two of the most cherished constitutional rights in the United States are the right to vote and the right to freedom of speech.
Read More
Other courts use a much less demanding standard. These courts will often apply a standard similar to that discussed in theGentile case whether there is a substantial likelihood public statements about the trial would prejudice court proceedings. And some courts have used even a lower standard whether there is a reasonable likelihood that public statements will prejudice an underlying proceeding.
Gag orders featuring high profile defendants like the former President receive significant media attention. In the age of social media, everyone including court participants can reach a wider audience and this makes judges more sensitive to interference with court proceedings and more prone to issue gag orders. But as noted at the outset, in each case, they raise important constitutional considerations as they are a form of prior restraint.
The case law draws a distinction between gag orders against the media on the one hand and gag orders against trial participants, including attorneys, on the other hand. However, all gag orders are not only prior restraints but content-based restrictions on speech. As such, they should be subject to rigorous review and must be narrowly drawn.
By David L. Hudson, Jr. (Last updated: June 20, 2024)
Continue reading here:
Gag orders and First Amendment rights - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
- Most Americans can name only one right protected by the First Amendment, Annenberg survey finds - The Daily Pennsylvanian - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- A Majority of Americans Cant Recall Most First Amendment Rights - The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Can you list all the First Amendment rights? Only 7% of Americans can, poll finds - Miami Herald - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Todays TikTok Appeal Pressure Tests The First Amendment - Forrester - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Heres what to know about free speech protections outlined by the First Amendment - Fort Worth Star-Telegram - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- DC Circuit skeptical of TikToks First Amendment effort to stave off looming ban - Courthouse News Service - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Can candidates lie & get away with it? See if First Amendment rules vary for GA elections - Columbus Ledger-Enquirer - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- McConnell On The Judicial Bureaucracy And The First Amendment - Remark | Remarks | THE NEWSROOM | Republican Leader - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Mistreatment of Indian journalist in Texas may have violated First Amendment rights: NPC - Daily Excelsior - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Says Pro-Hamas Groups Threats Are Protected by First Amendment - Algemeiner - September 8th, 2024 [September 8th, 2024]
- State of the First Amendment Address to focus on free speech, free exercise and the establishment clause - UK College of Communication and Information - September 8th, 2024 [September 8th, 2024]
- Letter to the Editor: Defending our First Amendment rights - Daily Bulldog - September 8th, 2024 [September 8th, 2024]
- Opinion | Only the First Amendment Can Protect Students, Campuses and Speech - The New York Times - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- The Growing Threat of State Domestic Terrorism Laws to the First Amendment - Just Security - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- First Amendment or foreign interference? Jury to decide in federal trial of Uhuru members - WTSP.com - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- State of the First Amendment Address to focus on free speech, free exercise and the establishment clause - UKNow - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Interpreting the First Amendment through an equality lens - University of Miami: News@theU - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Andrew Walker: The importance of the First Amendment - WORLD News Group - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Daily Herald opinion: Free speech and election politics: Chilling-sounding 'First Amendment Zones' pose a legitimate, not insurmountable, challenge... - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Phil Donahue: The man who brought robust talk to TV an interview with Ken Paulson about the man and his legacy First Amendment News 438 - Foundation... - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Private Universities That Reject First Amendment Principles Put Themselves At Legal Risk (Updated) - Reason - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Federal Judge Who Ruled Ald. Gardiner Violated First Amendment Admonishes Him for Approaching Her - WTTW News - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Law professors: Northwestern University must embrace the First Amendment standard of speech - Chicago Tribune - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Trump Says We Gotta Restrict the First Amendment - Rolling Stone - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Constitution Day speaker to discuss the First Amendment, 2024 Election - Fredonia.edu - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Does the First Amendment Protect A.I.? The Supreme Court May Soon Have Its Say. - Slate - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- The First Amendment and practical implications of SEA 202 - Indiana Lawyer - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Arizona Woman Arrested for Exercising First Amendment Rights, Criticizing Public Official - Turning Point USA - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- First Amendment / Second Amendment Lawyer Jobs in California - Reason - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- Nashville mayor introduces legislation aimed at safety and protecting First Amendment rights - WSMV 4 - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- A few reflections on the Benjamin Gitlow story as that landmark case nears its centennial anniversary First Amendment News 436 - Foundation for... - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- 72 People Have Been Arrested Related to First Amendment Activities During the DNC, Including 3 Journalists - WTTW News - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- 72 People Have Been Arrested Related to First Amendment Activities During the DNC, Including 3 Journalists WTTW (Chicago) - Wirepoints - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- Europes outrageous attack on the First Amendment - Washington Examiner - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Who's for the First Amendment and who's against - Martinsburg Journal - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Catholic Charities asks Supreme Court to protect First Amendment rights in battle against the state - AOL - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Five ways the First Amendment protects your speech and three ways it does not - ACLU of DC - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Video Democrats can handle protests and protecting the First Amendment: Brandon Johnson - ABC News - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- University I-Team launched, tasked with supporting First Amendment rights - Daily Illini - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- TikTok fights the DOJ on the First Amendment, compares itself to these American news outlets - Fast Company - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Whose Bible (and First Amendment) is it, anyway? | Opinion - NJ.com - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Anti-abortion organizations claim N.Y. attorney general is violating First Amendment over info on treatment - Spectrum News - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- In Response to City-Promoted Religious Walk: First Amendment Activist Proposes 'Chicken Wings, Piatas, and a Satanic Rave' - Tamarac Talk - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- A First Amendment fight for the future of the internet - The Boston Globe - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- Pushing back against the state - WORLD News Group - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- So to Speak Podcast Transcript: The First Amendment at the Supreme Court - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- Ruling boosts social media free speech protections, some say - Roll Call - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- Can the First Amendment Protect Americans From Government Censorship? - The New York Sun - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- The aftermath of the Supreme Courts NetChoice ruling - The Verge - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling 'inconsistent' with First Amendment - ADF Media - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- Car shows, the First Amendment, and $30 - The Citizen.com - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- ACLU lawsuit claims Rose Bud ordinance restricts First Amendment rights - KARK - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- DOJ report on Phoenix PD contains guidance on First Amendment rights at protests - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- Chicago Police Department Revises Plan to Handle Protests Around DNC After Reform Groups Object - WTTW News - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- Is Promotion of Free Services "Commercial Speech" for First Amendment Purposes? - Reason - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Opinion | Alito comments threaten the First Amendment - The Washington Post - The Washington Post - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Six West Virginia Schools Notified of First Amendment Violations in Student Handbooks - WV News - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Missouri AG joins 23 states to defend Trump's First Amendment rights - kttn - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Voting assistance covered by First Amendment, say plaintiffs in absentee ballot case Alabama Reflector - Alabama Reflector - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- ACLU Urges Six WV Schools to Review Student Policies Violating First Amendment - The 74 - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Do Anti-CRT Laws Violate the First Amendment? - Vanderbilt Law - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Book Review: The Indispensable Right, by Jonathan Turley - The New York Times - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Perspectives: Tale of two Cohens: promissory and profane - Minnesota Lawyer - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- SPJ urges Mississippi Supreme Court to overturn lower court order that threatens journalists' First Amendment rights - Society of Professional... - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Anti-Semitism and the First Amendment | | khq.com - KHQ Right Now - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Personal Reflections: First Amendment and Religious Freedom | Opinion and Editorials | Lewiston Tribune | lmtribune ... - Lewiston Morning Tribune - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Fort Worth City Reinforces First Amendment Rights with True Texas Project Event Reinstatement at Botanic Garden - Hoodline - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Supreme Court Clears Way for N.R.A. to Pursue First Amendment Challenge - The New York Times - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- SCOTUS unanimously backs NRA on First Amendment ruling - JURIST - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- Unanimous First Amendment Victory for the NRA (Represented by the ACLU) - Reason - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- Supreme Court Says Government Bullying Can Violate the First Amendment - Goldwater Institute - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- SCOTUS Unanimously Sides With NRA in First Amendment Case - The Reload - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- Supreme Court unanimously sides with NRA in First Amendment dispute with New York official - Washington Times - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- Why Justice Sotomayor just handed the NRA a big Supreme Court victory - Vox.com - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- John Stockton Loses Case Over Regulation of COVID Speech - Sportico - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- More on the New York Trump Case and the First Amendment - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Campus encampment bans rarely violate the First Amendment. Here's why. - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Trump's Trial and the First Amendment - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Are gag orders constitutional? SCOTUS says it depends - VERIFYThis.com - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Has a First Amendment Right to Pay Hush Money to Support his Electoral Ambitions - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]