Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co.

1979-06-26

Headline: Court strikes down West Virginia law that criminalized newspapers publishing juveniles’ names without court approval, protecting press reporting and limiting states’ power to punish truthful reporting.

Holding: The Court held that a West Virginia statute making it a crime to publish a juvenile's name without court approval violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments when the information was lawfully obtained and truthful.

Real World Impact:

Protects newspapers from criminal charges for publishing lawfully obtained juvenile names.
Limits states’ ability to use criminal penalties to keep juvenile identities secret.
Signals courts require a very high state interest before punishing truthful reporting.

Topics: juvenile privacy, freedom of the press, criminal penalties for publication, media reporting

Summary

Background

This case involves West Virginia officials and two local newspapers, the Charleston Daily Mail and the Charleston Gazette. After a 15-year-old was killed, reporters learned the name of the alleged 14-year-old assailant through routine reporting. The Gazette published the name and picture; the Daily Mail published the name after radio broadcasts made it public. A grand jury indicted the newspapers under a West Virginia law forbidding newspapers from publishing a juvenile's name without a court order. The state high court blocked prosecution.

Reasoning

The main question was whether a State may criminally punish newspapers for publishing truthful information they lawfully obtained about youths charged in juvenile proceedings. The Court said such punishment requires a state interest of the highest order. It held that West Virginia’s anonymity interest did not justify criminal sanctions here. The Court also noted the law failed in its aim because it applied only to newspapers while others had already broadcast the name.

Real world impact

The decision protects newspapers from criminal prosecution when they publish truthful, lawfully obtained names of juveniles, unless a truly overriding state interest is shown. Reporters and editors gain clearer protection for ordinary reporting of such names. The ruling narrows the State’s power to use criminal penalties to preserve juvenile confidentiality. The Court emphasized the holding is narrow and does not resolve other questions about privacy or access to proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist agreed with the result but stressed the State’s strong interest in juvenile anonymity and said a generally effective ban across all media might be constitutional; he joined the judgment because the West Virginia law was ineffective, targeting only newspapers while radio had already broadcast the name.