Associated Press v. District Court for Fifth Judicial District of Colorado
Acting alone as the Circuit Justice for Colorado, Justice Breyer temporarily turned down media outlets' request to lift a gag order blocking publication of transcripts from closed-door hearings in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case.
Breyer denied the request 'without prejudice,' meaning the outlets can refile within days, because the trial court was on the verge of deciding which parts of the transcripts could be made public anyway, potentially resolving the dispute without further court intervention.
“But a brief delay will permit the state courts to clarify, perhaps avoid, the controversy at issue here.”
Breyer's reasoning for temporarily denying the media outlets' stay request.
How it got here: The trial court barred publication; the Colorado Supreme Court found that order too broad but allowed a narrower version; the media outlets asked Justice Breyer, as Circuit Justice, to stay both orders.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Several major newspaper and media companies covering the criminal prosecution of Kobe Bryant for sexual assault received transcripts of closed-door ('in camera') hearings after a court reporter accidentally emailed them. The transcripts concerned evidence subject to Colorado's rape shield law. After learning of the mistake, the trial court ordered the outlets not to publish the contents and to delete them from their computers.
The question before the Court
Should news organizations be allowed to publish secret courtroom transcripts from Kobe Bryant's sexual assault case that were accidentally emailed to them?
Why it matters
News organizations covering a high-profile criminal case were temporarily barred from publishing transcripts they had lawfully received (albeit by mistake), highlighting the tension between court secrecy in sexual-assault cases and press freedom. The short delay let Colorado courts finish sorting out which material could be public, potentially avoiding a bigger First Amendment fight altogether.
What changes now
The application was denied without prejudice, meaning the media outlets could refile it starting two days later. Breyer set a briefing schedule: the state would respond explaining which transcript portions should stay confidential, and the outlets could reply a day after that. This is a temporary emergency order, not a final ruling on the First Amendment issue.
What this does not decide
This order does not resolve whether the gag order on the transcripts is constitutional. Breyer denied the stay only because circumstances were about to change, explicitly leaving the applicants free to refile once the trial court acted on which transcript portions were relevant and admissible.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Justice Breyer, sitting alone as Circuit Justice for the relevant circuit, had authority to grant or deny emergency stay requests affecting state-court orders, a role distinct from full Supreme Court review.
- He weighed the media outlets' First Amendment interest against the government's 'interest of the highest order' in shielding irrelevant sexual-assault evidence from disclosure under the rape shield law, noting the Colorado Supreme Court had already limited that interest to only the non-relevant portions of the transcripts.
- Breyer observed that the trial court had just ruled, the day responses were filed, on which evidence was relevant and admissible under the rape shield statute, but had not yet decided whether the transcripts themselves would be released.
- Because that pending relevancy ruling would likely determine how much of the transcripts could be published, and release appeared imminent, Breyer concluded that acting immediately risked deciding a dispute that state courts might resolve or reshape on their own within days.
- He therefore chose to allow a brief delay to let the state courts clarify or possibly moot the controversy, rather than rule on the stay while the underlying facts were still in flux.