NEW YORK TIMES CO. Et Al. v. JASCALEVICH

Background

The New York Times and one of its journalists asked Justice Marshall to stay a New Jersey Supreme Court order dated July 6, 1978, while they sought this Court’s review. The order grew out of a subpoena duces tecum directed at the news media and required production of reporter files for a judge’s private review. Lower courts and another Justice had already denied relief before this application reached Justice Marshall.

Reasoning

Justice Marshall reviewed the established standards for a stay: the applicants must show a favorable balance of hardships and that at least four Justices would likely agree to hear the case. He concluded the applicants did not meet this heavy burden. Marshall relied on long-standing policies against interrupting ongoing criminal trials and noted that federal practice normally requires a party faced with a subpoena either to comply or to risk contempt and raise arguments later. He also emphasized that the order called for in-camera (private) inspection by a judge and that it is not yet clear whether materials would be released to the defense or the public.

Real world impact

The ruling lets lower courts proceed with private judicial review of reporter materials during active criminal trials and discourages pre-appeal delay by news organizations. It means reporters can seek their arguments later in contempt or appellate proceedings, but they cannot rely on an immediate stay to stop production. This decision is procedural and does not resolve the broader legal question about reporters’ obligations to surrender confidential files.