Gruner v. Superior Court

Background

The applicants are editors and reporters for the Fresno Bee who refused in open court to answer questions about the identity of confidential sources used for news articles. The articles relied on information taken from sealed grand jury testimony. A California Superior Court found each of the reporters in contempt and ordered them jailed until they would answer the questions. The Superior Court and the California Supreme Court denied requests for stays, and earlier attempts to get this Court’s review were also denied in related filings.

Reasoning

The core question presented is whether the reporters were entitled to a temporary stay or a special pre-commitment hearing before being jailed for contempt. The application relied on First and Fourteenth Amendment arguments previously raised in connection with Branzburg v. Hayes, and the reporters also argued they were entitled to a “due process” hearing to test whether jailing would likely achieve the court’s purpose. The Circuit Justice noted that less than four Justices had been disposed to grant review earlier and found no Supreme Court case supporting a requirement for a separate hearing before commitment. He described the reporters’ position as effectively saying a court could not jail those who promise to resist, and therefore denied the stay requests.

Real world impact

The denial leaves the state contempt judgments and their jailing orders in place while the reporters’ petition for review proceeds. The order is a decision about a stay and a preliminary hearing requirement, not a final ruling on the reporters’ broader constitutional claims, which remain to be decided if this Court grants review.