Nicholas Somberg v. Karen McDonald, 117 F.4th 375

Nicholas Somberg, a Michigan attorney, was subject to a local court rule in Oakland County's 52nd Judicial District Court that forbids recording, photographing, or livestreaming judicial proceedings without judicial permission.
Somberg took a screenshot during a virtual court proceeding and posted it on social media, resulting in an attempted (but ultimately dismissed) motion for contempt by the prosecutor.
Fearing future contempt motions, Somberg filed suit against the county prosecutor, seeking a declaratory judgment that the electronics rule violates the First Amendment and an injunction preventing its enforcement against him.
The district court granted summary judgment for the prosecutor, finding the rule constitutional under the First Amendment.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit majority determined the case on standing grounds, not reaching the merits, and ordered dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; there was a dissent arguing Somberg did have standing and should lose on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III Standing	Somberg faces a credible threat of contempt enforcement and thus has standing for pre-enforcement challenge.	Somberg lacks standing because the injury is caused by the court, not the prosecutor, and an injunction would not redress the alleged injury.	Somberg lacks standing; no redressability or causation.
First Amendment Right	Recording court proceedings is protected expressive conduct (or protected news-gathering activity) under the First Amendment.	The electronics rule is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restriction in a nonpublic forum (the courtroom), justified by preserving court decorum and fairness.	(Not addressed by majority; dissent: rule is constitutional)
Redressability	Injunctive relief against the prosecutor would prevent future chilling and enforcement.	Prosecutor cannot control court's independent contempt authority, so injunction would not prevent harm.	No redressability; injunction would not stop contempt power.
Role of Prosecutor	Prosecutor's action in seeking contempt is sufficient to establish causation for standing.	Prosecutor is not the entity with ultimate contempt power; merely initiates, not decides.	Court: Only the court holds contempt power; prosecutor's role does not confer standing.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Art. III standing requirements: injury, causation, redressability)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (pre-enforcement First Amendment standing standard)
Bloom v. State of Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (criminal contempt as a crime in the ordinary sense)
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (forum analysis for free speech restrictions)
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (expressive conduct under First Amendment)
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (scope of expressive conduct protection under First Amendment)
Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (state interest in regulating courtroom procedures)
Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (requirement for viewpoint neutrality in speech restrictions)
Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (right to gather news and access information)