Pennekamp v. Florida
328 U.S. 331, 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2281, 66 S. Ct. 1029 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For speech critical of the judiciary to be punishable as contempt, it must constitute a 'clear and present danger' to the administration of justice. This danger must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high, a standard not met by publications that criticize judicial actions already taken, even if the cases are technically still pending.
Facts:
- John D. Pennekamp was the associate editor of the Miami Herald, a newspaper published by the Miami Herald Publishing Co.
- The Miami Herald published two editorials and an accompanying cartoon that were critical of the Dade County Circuit Court judges' actions in several criminal cases.
- The editorials accused the judges of using legal "technicalities" to protect defendants, hinder prosecutions, and nullify the law.
- One editorial specifically criticized a judge for quashing eight rape indictments, but it failed to report that the prosecutor had agreed the indictments were defective and that new indictments were immediately filed the next day.
- Other examples cited included the dismissal of a padlock action against a venue called the Brook Club and a ruling against the state in a nuisance suit involving the Tepee Club.
- The cartoon depicted a robed judge on the bench tossing aside formal charges to a powerful, criminal-type figure while a smaller figure labeled "Public Interest" protested in vain.
Procedural Posture:
- The Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, issued a citation charging John D. Pennekamp and the Miami Herald Publishing Co. with contempt of court.
- The Circuit Court, acting as the trial court, found the petitioners guilty of contempt and imposed monetary fines.
- Pennekamp and the publisher, as appellants, appealed the contempt judgment to the Supreme Court of Florida.
- The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the judgment of guilt rendered by the Circuit Court.
- The petitioners successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court to review the judgment of the Florida 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 contempt conviction against a newspaper for publishing editorials and a cartoon critical of judicial conduct in pending cases violate the First Amendment's protection of a free press when the publications do not create a clear and present danger to the fair administration of justice?
Opinions:
Majority - Reed, J.
Yes, a contempt conviction under these circumstances violates the First Amendment. For commentary on judicial proceedings to be punished as contempt, it must pose a 'clear and present danger' to the fair administration of justice. The Court, applying the test from Bridges v. California, found that the editorials and cartoon did not meet this high standard. The publications criticized judicial actions already taken, and their potential effect on judges' future decisions was too remote and speculative to constitute a clear and present danger. The Court reasoned that judges are presumed to possess a degree of fortitude sufficient to withstand such criticism without being improperly influenced. While the editorials contained inaccuracies and omissions, freedom of the press requires giving the 'widest range compatible with the essential requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice.' Punishing this type of commentary would improperly stifle public discussion of the judiciary.
Concurring - Frankfurter, J.
Yes, the conviction should be reversed. While freedom of the press and an independent judiciary are both indispensable to a free society, the 'clear and present danger' test should not be a rigid formula. 'Trial by newspaper' is a serious evil, but the power to punish for contempt must be used carefully. In this specific case, the editorials criticized judicial acts that were already completed; the cases were not 'pending' in the sense that a decision was being actively deliberated that the editorials could influence. The publications did not attempt to insert weight into the scales of justice while they were balancing, but rather criticized what the court had already put in the scales. Therefore, the commentary may have offended the judges' 'sense of perspective,' but it did not disturb their 'sense of fairness' in administering justice.
Concurring - Murphy, J.
Yes, the conviction must be overturned. The freedom of the press includes the right to criticize and disparage the judiciary, even if the terms used are 'vitriolic, scurrilous or erroneous.' To constitute a clear and present danger, criticism must make it 'impossible in a very real sense for a court to carry on the administration of justice.' That standard is not remotely met here. Judges must be vigilant in protecting the freedom of others to criticize the bench and refuse to be influenced by unfair censure, otherwise free expression would depend on judicial sensitivity rather than constitutional principle.
Concurring - Rutledge, J.
Yes, the conviction cannot stand. Legal news is often reported inaccurately by lay journalists, and punishing every misstatement would be an impossible standard that would silence necessary criticism of the judiciary. The test is not mere falsity, but whether the statement, true or false, obstructs the judicial process in a 'clear and substantial way.' The editorials here, while containing inaccuracies and exceeding the bounds of fair comment in parts, did not block or obstruct the functioning of the court. Therefore, they are protected speech.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforced the 'clear and present danger' test established in Bridges v. California, solidifying its application to media criticism of the judiciary. By reversing the contempt conviction, the Court clarified that even factually inaccurate or unfair criticism of judicial actions is constitutionally protected unless it poses a direct, immediate, and substantial threat to the administration of justice. This decision curtails the judiciary's ability to use its contempt power to shield itself from public scrutiny, thereby strengthening the role of the press as a public watchdog over the courts. The ruling forces courts to tolerate a high degree of criticism, drawing a firm line between commentary that might embarrass a judge and commentary that actually obstructs justice.
