BONURA Et Al. v. CBS, INC., Et Al.
Headline: A Circuit Justice declines to lift an appeals court stay of a federal judge’s order banning a CBS program segment in Dallas, leaving the appeals court’s pause and the broadcast restriction in place.
Holding: As Circuit Justice, Justice White denied the application to vacate the Court of Appeals’ stay, leaving the appeals court’s pause on the District Court’s broadcast ban in effect.
- Keeps the appeals court stay in place, so the Dallas broadcast segment remains barred for now.
- An emergency single-Justice decision does not finally resolve the underlying dispute.
Summary
Background
A federal judge in New Orleans held a hearing on January 15, 1983, and issued an order forbidding CBS from broadcasting a specific segment of a designated program in the Dallas area. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals then issued a stay, pausing the District Court’s order. An application was made to Justice White, acting as the Circuit Justice, asking him to set aside that appeals-court stay.
Reasoning
Justice White explained that, as Circuit Justice, he has the power to set aside an appeals-court stay but that such action requires the weightiest considerations. He reviewed the hearing transcript, the District Court’s order, the appeals panel’s stay, and the application before him. He said he was not convinced the Court of Appeals had erred and did not believe a majority of the full Court would vote to lift the stay, so he denied the application.
Real world impact
Because Justice White refused to overturn the appeals court’s stay, the appeals court’s pause remains in effect and the Dallas broadcast segment remains barred for now. This ruling was an emergency procedural decision by a single Justice and is not a final ruling on the underlying dispute; the issue could return to the full Court or be decided differently later.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?