Cbs Inc. v. Davis, Circuit Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota No. A-669
Headline: A news program blocked from airing undercover meatpacking footage gets a stay, allowing the broadcast while the company’s lawsuit proceeds and limiting state courts’ power to silence media reports.
Holding:
- Allows the news program to broadcast the undercover plant footage while legal claims continue.
- Limits state courts’ ability to impose prior restraints on media absent great and certain harm.
- Means companies must seek money damages rather than stop publication in similar cases.
Summary
Background
CBS News obtained undercover videotape of operations at a South Dakota meatpacking plant when a plant employee agreed to wear a hidden camera during a work shift. The meatpacker sued, claiming trespass, breach of loyalty, and trade secret violations, and a South Dakota trial court issued a preliminary injunction preventing CBS from broadcasting the footage. The trial court found the broadcast could cause significant economic harm to the company and described the footage as obtained through "calculated misdeeds." The State Supreme Court denied an immediate stay and set later proceedings.
Reasoning
A Justice in chambers reviewed CBS’ emergency request and focused on the First Amendment’s strong protection against prior restraints—court orders that prevent publication. The Justice concluded that the trial court needed to show a very clear, grave, and unavoidable harm before suppressing speech, and that the mere possibility of business loss was speculative. The Justice also found no clear evidence of criminal conduct by CBS that would justify silencing the story. He explained that, if CBS violated state law, the proper remedy is money damages after publication, not stopping the broadcast in advance. On that basis, the injunction was stayed under the All Writs Act so the program could air while the legal dispute continues.
Real world impact
The stay lets CBS proceed with its telecast immediately and signals that state courts should rarely block news reports in advance. Companies may still sue later for damages, but prior suppression of media reports will be allowed only in exceptional, well-supported circumstances.
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?