New York Times Co. Et Al. v. New Jersey Et Al.

Background

The dispute involves the New York Times Company and reporter Myron Farber, who were ordered by a New Jersey court to produce subpoenaed materials in a criminal investigation involving Dr. Mario E. Jascalevich. After they refused, the state court held them in contempt and Justice Stewart entered a temporary stay on September 26, 1978. The full Supreme Court was asked to decide whether that stay should remain while the paper’s petition is considered.

Reasoning

The Court granted a motion to vacate Justice Stewart’s stay and ordered that his stay be vacated, with Justice Brennan not participating. Justice Marshall dissented. He explained that forced disclosure — even for a judge-only, in-camera review — can inhibit reporters’ First Amendment rights and that a court should first make independent findings that the materials are material, relevant, and necessary. Marshall said petitioners raised substantial First and Fourteenth Amendment claims and that both criminal and civil contempt penalties should be held off until the Supreme Court resolves the petition.

Real world impact

By vacating the stay, the Court allowed the earlier temporary protection to be removed, enabling the state’s contempt proceedings and any enforcement of subpoenas to move forward while the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case. The ruling does not decide the constitutional claims on the merits and could be changed later.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall would have kept the stay, emphasizing the need for a threshold showing of materiality, relevance, and necessity before compelling reporters to produce materials.