Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. First Judicial District Court, State of Wyoming, County of Laramie
2015 WY 113
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. seeks a writ of review of a district court order restricting media publication.
- District Court’s August 12, 2015 order barred releasing the names of juvenile witnesses during the State v. Phillip Sam trial.
- Sam is charged as an adult with first-degree murder and multiple counts of aggravated assault; several witnesses are alleged juveniles.
- A prior hearing (Aug. 6–11, 2015) led to objections to restrictions on publication of minors’ names and photos.
- Wyoming Supreme Court reviews the petition de novo and rules the district court’s order violates the First Amendment’s free speech and free press protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the district court’s order restricting naming juvenile witnesses constitute a prior restraint on speech? | Cheyenne Newspapers argues it unlawfully censors publication of information disclosed in open proceedings. | The district court imposed the restraint to protect juvenile witnesses from threats. | Yes; the order is an impermissible prior restraint on publication. |
| If a prior restraint is challenged, do Nebraska Press factors justify upholding it? | Factors show the restraint is ineffective and unnecessary to protect witnesses. | Factors could justify restraint to protect witnesses if needed. | The factors do not support sustaining the restraint; it fails exacting First Amendment scrutiny. |
| Are there alternative protections short of prior restraint that adequately safeguard juvenile witnesses? | Other measures may suffice; prior restraint is unnecessary. | Protective measures and warnings may mitigate risks. | Yes; there are effective alternatives, so restraint is not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (prior restraints carry heavy constitutional scrutiny; open trials protect justice)
- Oklahoma Publ’g Co. v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308 (1977) (pretrial restrictions must be narrowly tailored and open proceedings favored)
- Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975) (press may report information from public courtroom proceedings without punishment)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court of Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 606 (1982) (open trials and public access serve as checks on the judiciary)
- Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) (prior restraint generally unconstitutional except in extraordinary cases)
- United States v. Quattrone, 402 F.3d 304 (2d Cir. 2005) (prior restraints and press protections in criminal proceedings require careful balancing)