THE ASSOCIATED PRESS v. NEAL
1:25-cv-00872
S.D. Ind.May 16, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs are major media organizations seeking to attend and report on executions conducted by the State of Indiana.
- Indiana law allows only a limited group of people—mostly relatives, witnesses chosen by the convicted person, and certain officials—to observe executions, generally excluding the news media.
- Plaintiffs challenge this policy under the First Amendment, arguing it limits the press’s ability to observe executions, especially after they were denied observer status for a scheduled execution (Benjamin Ritchie).
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to allow access for up to four members of the media to attend impending executions while this lawsuit proceeds.
- The court considered whether Indiana’s restrictions are unconstitutional as applied to the press and whether a right of access to executions or press-specific access exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs’ Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment right of access to executions | There is a qualified right of press and public access to executions under Richmond Newspapers and its progeny. | Executions are not judicial proceedings; no historical tradition of media/public access exists; no special press rights apply. | No right attaches; Press-Enterprise II does not apply to executions; Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed. |
| Media unequal treatment (Press Clause) | Indiana law discriminates against the press by permitting some public members (e.g., family/friends) but not the general media to attend. | The law applies equally to all; press has no special access right; not singled out for unfavorable treatment. | No unconstitutional discrimination; press treated same as public; claim unlikely to succeed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (public and press right to attend criminal trials)
- Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (framework for qualified right of public access to governmental proceedings)
- Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (no special right of prison access for the press above public right)
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (First Amendment does not grant special access for press)
- Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (equal public and press access to information; no media privilege)