Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court in & for Oklahoma County
430 U.S. 308, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 58, 51 L. Ed. 2d 355 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a state may not prohibit the press from publishing lawfully obtained, truthful information, such as the name and photograph of a juvenile defendant, which was acquired during a court proceeding that was open to the public.
Facts:
- On July 26, 1976, a railroad switchman was fatally shot.
- An 11-year-old boy, Larry Donnell Brewer, appeared at a detention hearing on July 29, 1976, in connection with the shooting.
- Reporters from petitioner's newspapers were present in the courtroom during the hearing and learned the juvenile's name.
- As Brewer was escorted from the courthouse, a photographer for the petitioner took his picture.
- No objection was made by the judge, prosecutor, or defense counsel to the media's presence at the hearing or to the photographing of the juvenile.
- Following the hearing, petitioner's newspapers, along with other media outlets, published stories using the boy's name and photograph.
Procedural Posture:
- The District Court of Oklahoma County entered a pretrial order enjoining the media from publishing the minor's name or picture in connection with a pending juvenile proceeding.
- Petitioner, Oklahoma Publishing Co., filed a motion to quash the order, which the District Court denied.
- Petitioner then applied to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma for a writ of prohibition and mandamus to block the order.
- The Supreme Court of Oklahoma sustained the District Court's order.
- The petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
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 state court order that prohibits the press from publishing the name and picture of a juvenile defendant, when that information was lawfully obtained at a detention hearing open to the public, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of freedom of the press?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the state court order violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A court cannot prohibit the publication of widely disseminated information that was obtained at court proceedings which were, in fact, open to the public. Citing precedents like Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn and Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, the Court reasoned that the press may not be sanctioned for truthfully publishing information released to the public in official court proceedings. Even though Oklahoma statutes generally provide for private juvenile hearings, this specific hearing was de facto public; members of the press were present with the full knowledge of the presiding judge and other court officers, and no one objected. Because the information was acquired lawfully and with the state's implicit approval, its publication could not be subject to a prior restraint.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the principle against prior restraints on the press, extending the protections of Cox Broadcasting to the context of juvenile proceedings. It clarifies that the status of information as 'public' is determined by what actually happens in the courtroom, not just by what statutes say should happen. The ruling places the burden on courts to proactively close proceedings if they wish to ensure confidentiality; they cannot allow a hearing to be public and then retroactively censor the reporting of what transpired. This solidifies the media's right to report on information that is in the public domain, even when sensitive interests like juvenile privacy are at stake.
