Morland v. Sprecher

1979-07-02

Headline: Court refuses to force a faster appeal of a ban on publishing a national-security article, ruling the authors delayed and effectively gave up their right to an expedited review.

Holding: The motion for an emergency writ was denied because the people barred from publishing the article delayed and thereby forfeited any right to expedited appellate review.

Real World Impact:

Makes emergency appellate relief harder when appellants delay preparing their case.
Leaves the trial injunction and normal appeals schedule in place.
Signals courts expect prompt pursuit of expedited review by those challenging publication bans.

Topics: freedom of the press, national-security publication, appeals timing, publication bans

Summary

Background

A group seeking to publish an article called “The H-Bomb Secret: How We Got It, Why We’re Telling It” was blocked by a federal trial judge on March 26, 1979. The writers and publishers appealed, asked the appeals court for a faster hearing, and then asked this Court for an emergency order to make the appeals court speed up the case while it waited for a scheduled September 10 hearing.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court focused on timing. It described how the petitioners waited to file a strong request for expedition until June 15, although the injunction issued in late March. The Court listed delays: waiting to file the notice of appeal, proposing a long briefing schedule, asking for extensions, taking 81 days to file their opening brief, and not objecting when the appeals court set a September hearing. The Court said those choices meant the petitioners had given up whatever constitutional claim they might have had to immediate appellate review, so their emergency request was denied.

Real world impact

This ruling leaves the injunction and the scheduled appeals process in place rather than forcing an immediate hearing. It underscores that parties seeking emergency review must act quickly and not create delays themselves. The decision does not resolve whether the publication ban is lawful on the merits; it only rejects this request for an extraordinary shortcut to a faster appeal.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justice Brennan, disagreed. They said the appeals court’s delay was unreasonable and urged a faster hearing to verify or reject the justification for the publication ban.