Cable News Network, Inc., Et Al. v. Noriega Et Al.

1990-12-03

Headline: Court denies CNN’s request to halt a judge’s order blocking broadcasts of taped lawyer–client conversations, leaving the prior restraint in place and affecting press coverage of a criminal defendant.

Holding: The Court denied CNN’s application to stay the District Court’s restraining orders and denied the petition for review, leaving the injunction against broadcasting Noriega’s taped communications in effect.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the restraining orders against CNN’s broadcasts in place.
Limits immediate media coverage of Noriega’s taped communications.
Raises concerns about press freedom and prior restraints on publication.

Topics: press freedom, broadcasting limits, fair trial concerns, gag orders

Summary

Background

Cable News Network (CNN) asked the Supreme Court to stay a District Court order that enjoined CNN from broadcasting taped communications between Manuel Noriega and his counsel. The District Court entered the restraining order without finding that stopping the broadcast was necessary to protect Noriega’s right to a fair trial, saying no such finding was needed unless CNN surrendered the tapes. The Court of Appeals later affirmed the District Court’s conclusion.

Reasoning

The core question presented is whether a trial court may bar publication of material alleged to threaten a criminal defendant’s fair trial right without a threshold showing that the publication will actually cause harm and that suppression is the only way to prevent it. The Supreme Court, in the order here, denied CNN’s application to stay the restraining orders and denied the petition for review, leaving the lower-court orders intact. The order does not resolve the larger legal test on the merits.

Real world impact

Because the stay and the petition were denied, the District Court’s restraining orders remain in effect while the lower-court rulings stand. The outcome directly affects CNN’s ability to broadcast the Noriega–counsel tapes and has immediate consequences for media coverage of this criminal case. The dissenting justice warned that the result raises serious concerns for freedom of the press and prior restraints on publication.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice O’Connor, dissented. He argued that the prior restraint here conflicts with the heavy presumption against such restraints and said he would grant the stay and the petition and reexamine the governing precedent, Nebraska Press.