In re Dow Jones & Co.
Headline: Court finds Dow Jones’ emergency request to unseal and publish a sealed appeals order moot, allowing publication of a later public order that reveals the same information.
Holding: The Circuit Justice concluded Dow Jones’ emergency application to stay a sealed appeals order and allow publication was moot because a subsequent public appeals order disclosed the same content, making emergency relief unnecessary.
- Allows Dow Jones to report on the later public appeals order.
- Ends the immediate need for an emergency court stay to publish the order.
- Keeps the underlying Independent Counsel report withholding dispute unresolved.
Summary
Background
On November 3, 1994, the Court of Appeals’ Division for Appointing Independent Counsels issued a sealed order denying Dow Jones & Company’s motion for disclosure of the report by Independent Counsel Robert B. Fiske. Dow Jones moved to unseal that November 3 order and asked the Court of Appeals to reconsider. After those filings, Dow Jones asked this Court on November 22 for an emergency stay only to allow publication and reporting of the appeals court’s November 3 order and its contents.
Reasoning
The core question was whether emergency permission to publish was still needed. The day after Dow Jones’ emergency application, the Court of Appeals issued a public order denying reconsideration, discussed the earlier November 3 order and its contents, and explained why it refused to release Independent Counsel Fiske’s report. Because that later order was not filed under seal and there is no indication Dow Jones is barred from reporting it, the Circuit Justice concluded the emergency application for a stay was moot — that is, the urgent relief sought was no longer necessary.
Real world impact
Practically, Dow Jones and other news organizations may report on and publish the publicly filed Court of Appeals order that discusses the sealed November 3 order. The emergency route to force disclosure is no longer needed for immediate publication. The appeals court’s reasons for withholding the Independent Counsel’s full report remain on the record, and this decision addresses only the emergency publication request rather than the underlying merits of whether the report itself must be released.
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?