Las Vegas Review-Journal v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.
412 P.3d 23 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment does not permit a court to issue a prior restraint enjoining the press from reporting on information that was lawfully obtained from a government entity and is already in the public domain, even when the information implicates privacy interests.
Facts:
- On October 1, 2017, a mass shooting in Las Vegas resulted in the deaths of 58 people, including Charleston Hartfield, an off-duty police officer.
- Media organizations, including the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Associated Press, requested the victims' autopsy reports from the Clark County Coroner under the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA).
- The Coroner initially denied the requests for the victims' reports, asserting they were confidential.
- Following a court order in a separate NPRA lawsuit, the Coroner publicly released the 58 victims' autopsy reports on January 31, 2018, with names and other personal identifying information redacted.
- The Review-Journal and other news outlets received the redacted reports and immediately began publishing articles based on their contents.
- Two days after the reports were released, Charleston Hartfield's widow, Veronica Hartfield, became aware of their publication.
Procedural Posture:
- In a prior action, the Las Vegas Review-Journal sued the Clark County Coroner in a state trial court under the Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA), which resulted in a court order compelling the release of redacted autopsy reports.
- Subsequently, Veronica Hartfield and the Estate of Charleston Hartfield (the Hartfield Parties) filed a new, separate lawsuit in Nevada state trial court against the Coroner and the Review-Journal.
- The Hartfield Parties' complaint sought an injunction to bar the Review-Journal from disseminating or reporting on Mr. Hartfield's redacted autopsy report.
- The Hartfield Parties filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
- The trial court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Review-Journal and the Associated Press to refrain from publishing the Hartfield autopsy report.
- The Review-Journal filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition with the Supreme Court of Nevada, the state's highest court, to challenge the trial court's preliminary injunction.
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 preliminary injunction that bars the press from reporting on a redacted, anonymized autopsy report, which was lawfully obtained from the government pursuant to a court order and already publicly disseminated, violate the First Amendment as an unconstitutional prior restraint?
Opinions:
Majority - Pickering, J.
Yes, the preliminary injunction violates the First Amendment as an unconstitutional prior restraint. A court cannot enjoin the press from publishing truthful information that it lawfully obtained and that is already in the public domain. Prior restraints are the most serious infringement on First Amendment rights and are presumptively unconstitutional. The party seeking the restraint carries a heavy burden to show its justification, which was not met here. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn and The Florida Star v. B.J.F., the court reasoned that once information enters the public record, any privacy interests in that information fade significantly. Since the Review-Journal lawfully obtained the redacted reports from the Coroner pursuant to a court order and the information was already disseminated, the harm to the Hartfield family's privacy interests had already occurred and could not be undone by an injunction. The injunction was also ineffective because it only applied to the Review-Journal and the Associated Press, while other media outlets who possessed the reports were free to continue reporting. The district court improperly placed the burden on the press to prove the information's newsworthiness, whereas the burden is on the proponent of the restraint to justify it.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the high constitutional barrier against prior restraints on the press. It clarifies that once truthful, lawfully obtained information enters the public domain, the government's ability to subsequently censor its publication is virtually nonexistent, even in the face of compelling privacy concerns. The ruling serves as a powerful protection for journalists reporting on public records, establishing that the press cannot be silenced for publishing information that a government entity has already released. This precedent solidifies the principle that the remedy for an improper release of government information is not to gag the press, but to hold the government accountable, thereby favoring press freedom over attempts to retroactively enforce privacy.
