Bridges v. California
314 U.S. 252 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment’s protection of free speech and press prohibits punishing out-of-court publications for contempt of court unless the publications create a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent, such as the obstruction of justice.
Facts:
- In one case, two members of a labor union, Matthew Shannon and Kennan Holmes, were convicted of assault.
- Before the judge pronounced sentence or ruled on their application for probation, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial titled 'Probation for Gorillas?', which stated the judge 'will make a serious mistake if he grants probation.'
- The Los Angeles Times published two other editorials commenting on separate pending cases after guilty verdicts but before the judges had pronounced sentences.
- In a second, separate case, a legal dispute was ongoing between an A.F. of L. union and a C.I.O. union, of which Harry Bridges was an officer.
- While a motion for a new trial was pending after a judge issued a decision unfavorable to the C.I.O. union, Bridges sent a telegram to the U.S. Secretary of Labor which was then published in newspapers.
- The telegram called the judge's decision 'outrageous' and stated that attempted enforcement would 'tie up the port of Los Angeles and involve the entire Pacific Coast,' and that the union did 'not intend to allow state courts to override the majority vote of members.'
Procedural Posture:
- The Times-Mirror Company, its editor, and Harry Bridges were separately found guilty of contempt of court in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, a state trial court.
- The petitioners appealed their convictions to the California Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The California Supreme Court affirmed the contempt convictions at issue.
- The petitioners (Times-Mirror Co. and Bridges) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the state supreme court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do contempt of court convictions for out-of-court publications about pending litigation, based on a finding that the publications have a 'reasonable tendency' to interfere with the administration of justice, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of freedom of speech and press?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
Yes. The contempt convictions violate the First Amendment because the publications did not pose a clear and present danger to the administration of justice. The Court rejects California's 'reasonable tendency' test, holding that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before speech can be punished. The Court reasoned that public discussion of pending litigation is a core First Amendment activity, especially when the issues are timely and important. To punish the newspaper's editorial would be to 'impute to judges a lack of firmness, wisdom, or honor,' as they should be able to withstand public criticism. Regarding the telegram from Bridges, the Court found it did not add a significant threat, as the possibility of a strike was an existing fact of the labor dispute, and the judge would have already been aware of it. The 'charge added by the Bridges telegram can be dismissed as negligible.'
Dissenting - Justice Frankfurter
No. The state's power to punish for contempt publications that have a reasonable tendency to interfere with the administration of justice does not violate the First Amendment. The dissent argues that free speech is not an absolute right and must be balanced against the equally important right to a fair trial secured by an impartial judiciary. This power is deeply rooted in common law history and is essential for preventing 'trial by newspaper.' Frankfurter contended that the Los Angeles Times editorial 'Probation for Gorillas?' and the Bridges telegram were not mere comments but were direct threats and attempts to coerce and intimidate a judge in a pending case. He argued that the majority's application of the 'clear and present danger' test was too rigid and deprived states of a necessary tool to protect the integrity of their courts.
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly strengthened First Amendment protections for the press by applying the stringent 'clear and present danger' test to contempt of court proceedings. It effectively ended the use of the less-protective 'reasonable tendency' standard for punishing out-of-court publications that comment on pending litigation. By setting a very high bar for what constitutes a punishable interference with justice, the ruling empowers the press to report on and criticize the judiciary more freely. This has had a lasting impact, ensuring robust public discourse about the judicial process, while limiting the judiciary's power to silence critics through summary contempt proceedings.
