Patterson v. Colorado Ex Rel. Attorney General of Colo.

1907-04-15

Headline: Court declines to overturn a journalist’s contempt fine for criticizing state judges, lets the state punishment stand, and leaves limits on press criticism to state law and courts.

Holding: The Court dismissed the writ of error and declined to overturn a contempt fine for published criticism of pending state cases, treating the issues as questions of state law and leaving limits to the State.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to punish publications that interfere with pending court proceedings.
Leaves limits on criticizing judges to state law rather than federal oversight.
Keeps unresolved whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects press freedom against States.

Topics: freedom of the press, contempt of court, state judicial power, Fourteenth Amendment

Summary

Background

Thomas M. Patterson, who admitted publishing articles and a cartoon criticizing the Colorado Supreme Court’s handling of cases, was prosecuted and fined for contempt. He argued the publications were true, written as a public duty, and raised federal constitutional objections, including under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Colorado courts entered judgment fining him, and Patterson sought review in this Court by writ of error.

Reasoning

The majority treated the main disputes as questions of state law and procedure that this Court would not reexamine. It held that whether a case is still "pending," what conduct counts as contempt, and procedural requirements are matters the State may define without federal intervention. The opinion left open whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First Amendment against the States, but added that even if it did, a State may punish publications that tend to obstruct the administration of justice, and truth is not an absolute defense where publications interfere with pending proceedings.

Real world impact

As decided, the ruling allows state courts to enforce contempt rules against publications they view as interfering with pending judicial business, and it leaves the limits of criticizing judges largely under state control. The decision does not resolve the broader federal question of how the Fourteenth Amendment protects press freedom against state action, so national standards remain unsettled.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Harlan and Brewer dissented, arguing the case raised serious First Amendment rights and that the Fourteenth Amendment should protect free speech and press against state punishment; they would have reviewed and reached the federal question.