Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court
457 U.S. 596 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that mandates the exclusion of the press and the general public from the courtroom during the testimony of a minor victim in a sex-offense trial violates the First Amendment right of access to criminal trials.
Facts:
- A criminal defendant was charged in Massachusetts with the forcible rape and forced unnatural rape of three minor girls.
- At the time of trial, two of the victims were 16 years of age and one was 17.
- Pursuant to a Massachusetts statute, the trial judge ordered the courtroom closed to the press and the public.
- The Globe Newspaper Co. (Globe) attempted to gain access to the proceedings.
- The Commonwealth, on behalf of the victims, stated that the victims would not object to the press's presence if they could be guaranteed that their names and personal information would not be published.
- The names of the minor victims were already part of the public record.
Procedural Posture:
- In a rape trial in Massachusetts Superior Court (a trial court), the judge ordered the courtroom closed to the press and public based on a state statute.
- Globe Newspaper Co. (Globe) filed motions to revoke the order, which the trial court denied.
- Globe sought an injunction from a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which was denied. The criminal defendant was subsequently acquitted.
- Globe, as appellant, appealed to the full Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (the state's highest court), which dismissed the appeal as moot but construed the statute as requiring closure only during a minor victim's testimony.
- Globe appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia.
- On remand, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts again upheld the statute as constitutional under its narrow construction and dismissed Globe's appeal.
- Globe again appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Massachusetts statute that requires trial judges to exclude the press and general public from the courtroom during the testimony of a minor victim in a sex-offense trial violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the right of access to criminal trials?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, the Massachusetts statute violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees a right of public access to criminal trials, which can only be overcome by a showing that a denial of access is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. While safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor victim is a compelling interest, a mandatory closure rule is not a narrowly tailored means of serving that interest. A trial court must instead determine on a case-by-case basis whether closure is necessary, weighing factors such as the minor victim’s age, maturity, the nature of the crime, and the victim's own desires. The state's second interest—encouraging victims to testify—is speculative and not effectively advanced by the statute, as the press can still access and publicize the testimony from transcripts and other sources.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
No, the Massachusetts statute does not violate the First Amendment. The majority's reliance on Richmond Newspapers is misplaced because there is a long historical tradition of excluding the public from trials involving sexual assaults against minors. The state's interest in protecting child victims from the trauma and humiliation of public testimony is a compelling one that overrides the minimal impact on First Amendment rights, especially since transcripts of the testimony are made publicly available. A mandatory rule provides victims and their families with the assurance of protection, which may encourage the reporting of such crimes, an effect that would be undermined by a discretionary, case-by-case approach.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
This case should be dismissed because it is moot and the Court's decision is an advisory opinion. The underlying trial is over, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has since construed the statute more narrowly than the trial court did, meaning the same issue will not recur for this party. The Court is ruling on the constitutionality of a hypothetical partial-closure order that was never actually entered in a live controversy. The Court should wait for a case with concrete facts to decide how to balance the right of access with other societal interests, rather than rule on a statute in the abstract.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes, the statute violates the First Amendment. The constitutional right of access recognized in Richmond Newspapers is specific to the context of criminal trials, resting on their long history of openness and unique importance to the public. This holding should not be interpreted to create a broad right of access outside of criminal trials. The Massachusetts statute is unconstitutional because it imposes an automatic, mandatory bar to access, failing to allow for the necessary case-by-case determination of whether closure is justified, even in cases where the victim, defendant, and prosecutor have no objection to an open trial.
Analysis:
This case affirms and clarifies the First Amendment right of access to criminal trials established in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia. By applying strict scrutiny, the Court solidifies the principle that any government restriction on this right must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The decision invalidates mandatory, categorical closure rules, shifting the focus to individualized, case-by-case determinations by trial judges. This reinforces judicial discretion in balancing competing interests and sets a high bar for closing courtrooms, thereby strengthening the presumption of openness in the American legal system.
