Associated Press v. District Court for the Fifth Judicial District of Colorado
Justice Breyer, acting alone as Circuit Justice, denied a request by news organizations to block orders that stopped them from publishing accidentally-emailed transcripts from a sexual assault case, but he denied it without prejudice, meaning they could ask again in two days.
The trial court was about to rule on which parts of the transcripts were legally relevant, which could resolve or change the dispute entirely, so Breyer chose to wait rather than rule on the free-press question right away.
“But a brief delay will permit the state courts to clarify, perhaps avoid, the controversy at issue here.”
Breyer's reason for delaying rather than ruling on the stay request.
How it got here: The Colorado trial court barred publication; the Colorado Supreme Court found that order too broad but allowed a narrower version; the news outlets asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay both rulings.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A court reporter mistakenly emailed several newspapers and media outlets transcripts of private pretrial hearings in a high-profile sexual assault prosecution, held to decide what evidence about the accuser's sexual history could be used at trial under Colorado's rape shield law. After discovering the error, the trial court ordered the outlets not to publish the transcripts and to delete them from their computers.
The question before the Court
Could news organizations be barred from publishing transcripts of a rape shield hearing they received by a court's mistake?
Why it matters
News outlets covering a high-profile sexual assault prosecution were temporarily barred from publishing material they had already received, testing how far courts can go to stop publication of leaked court records. The short delay let the trial court's own admissibility rulings potentially make the free-speech fight unnecessary, avoiding a broader ruling on prior restraints.
What changes now
The denial is without prejudice, meaning the news outlets can refile their stay application starting July 28, 2004, once the trial court decides whether the transcripts will be released. If they refile, the state must explain why any redacted material should stay confidential, and the outlets can reply. This is not a final ruling on the free-press question.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether the prior restraint on publishing the transcripts is constitutional. It only postpones that question until the trial court finishes ruling on which evidence is admissible and whether the transcripts will be released.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The application asked a single Circuit Justice to stay a prior restraint on speech — a court order blocking publication before it happens, which courts treat as one of the most serious threats to free expression.
- Rather than resolve the constitutional question, the Justice looked at a recent, still-unfolding development: the trial court had just ruled on which pieces of the rape shield evidence were relevant and admissible, but had not yet decided whether the underlying transcripts themselves would be made public.
- The Justice reasoned that this pending decision could substantially change the dispute, since the trial court might release the transcripts in whole, in part, or with redactions, and that release appeared to be imminent.
- Weighing the acknowledged importance of the free-press interests against the benefit of letting the state courts finish clarifying the scope of any confidentiality, the Justice concluded a short delay was the more prudent course.
- The Justice therefore declined to rule on the stay now, opting instead to let the record develop before deciding whether any continued restriction on publication was justified.