Leigh v. Salazar
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7730
9th Cir.2012Background
- Leigh, a photojournalist, sues the BLM alleging First Amendment viewing restrictions at a 2010 Silver King horse roundup violated her rights.
- The Silver King roundup ran Sept. 25 to Oct. 13, 2010, capturing about 500 wild horses with designated viewing areas and safety restrictions.
- The district court denied Leigh’s TRO and preliminary injunction, finding most relief moot after the roundup ended and ruling Leigh unlikely to prove a First Amendment violation.
- Leigh appealed the denial, arguing the case seeks access to future roundups and holding facilities, not just the 2010 event.
- The panel held that the case is not moot as applied to future Silver King roundups and remanded for full application of the Press-Enterprise II right-of-access framework.
- The dispute centers on whether the public has a First Amendment right of access to horse gathers and related viewing facilities, and whether any restrictions are narrowly tailored to protect safety and other government interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot as to Leigh’s request for future access | Leigh’s motion targets all future Silver King gathers, not only 2010 | The roundup has ended, so relief is moot | Not moot for future gathers; remanded for full analysis |
| Whether the BLM viewing restrictions violate First Amendment rights | Restrictions infringe Leigh’s right to observe government activities | Restrictions are necessary for safety and efficient operations | Remand for application of Press-Enterprise II balancing test |
| Whether Press-Enterprise II applies to this administrative and civil regime | Rights framework applies beyond criminal trials | May be limited to other contexts | Applied; governing balancing test for access to government activities |
| What standard governs the district court on injunctive relief | District court failed to apply proper standard (Press-Enterprise II) | Lower court’s reasoning was adequate | Remand to conduct proper Press-Enterprise II analysis if a right of access exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (right of public access to trials; freedom of the press to observe government proceedings)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (U.S. 1982) (public access to testimony of child victims; transparency of government proceedings)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (two-step right-of-access test; open historical tradition and positive role; narrowly tailored overriding interest)
- Cal-Almond, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture, 960 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1992) (application of Press-Enterprise II outside criminal trials)
- California First Amendment Coalition v. Woodford, 299 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (modified Press-Enterprise II balancing for access to executions in prison context)
- In Defense of Animals v. United States Department of the Interior, 648 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2011) (mootness and public access questions in agency roundup context)