Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co.
443 U.S. 97, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 139, 61 L. Ed. 2d 399 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may not constitutionally punish a newspaper for publishing lawfully obtained, truthful information about a matter of public significance, absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order. The state's interest in protecting the anonymity of a juvenile offender is not sufficient to justify criminal sanctions against the press.
Facts:
- On February 9, 1978, a 15-year-old student was shot and killed at a junior high school in St. Albans, West Virginia.
- The alleged assailant was a 14-year-old classmate who was identified by seven eyewitnesses.
- Reporters for the Charleston Daily Mail and the Charleston Gazette monitored police radio and went to the school.
- The reporters lawfully obtained the name of the alleged juvenile assailant by asking various witnesses, police, and an assistant prosecuting attorney who were at the scene.
- At least three different radio stations also broadcast the alleged assailant's name on February 9 and 10.
- The Charleston Gazette published the juvenile's name and picture in its February 10 morning edition.
- After the name became public knowledge through other media, the Charleston Daily Mail also decided to publish the juvenile's name.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury in Kanawha County, West Virginia returned an indictment against the Charleston Daily Mail and the Charleston Gazette.
- The indictment alleged that the newspapers violated a state statute by publishing the name of a juvenile offender without a court order.
- The newspapers filed an original-jurisdiction petition with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, seeking a writ of prohibition to stop the prosecution.
- The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, issued the writ, holding that the statute abridged the freedom of the press and was unconstitutional.
- The prosecuting attorney and circuit court judges of Kanawha County (petitioners) sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from 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 statute that makes it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without prior court approval, the name of a youth charged as a juvenile offender violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments when the information was lawfully obtained?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. A state cannot punish the publication of truthful information, lawfully obtained, about a matter of public significance unless it is necessary to further a state interest of the highest order. The Court reasoned that whether the statute is viewed as a prior restraint or a subsequent punishment, it requires the highest form of state interest to be valid. Relying on precedents like Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia and Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, the Court found that the state's interest in protecting the anonymity of a juvenile offender to aid in rehabilitation, while significant, is not sufficient to outweigh the First Amendment's protection of a free press. Furthermore, the statute was unconstitutional because it did not accomplish its stated purpose, as it only restricted newspapers while other media, such as radio stations, were free to publish the juvenile's name.
Concurring - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. While disagreeing with the majority's conclusion that the state's interest was insufficient, Justice Rehnquist concurred in the judgment because the West Virginia statute was not narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose. He argued that a state's interest in preserving juvenile anonymity is of the 'highest order' and could justify a properly drafted law. However, this specific statute failed because it prohibited only newspapers from publishing the juvenile's name, while allowing electronic media and other forms of publication to do so with impunity. Because the law was underinclusive and thus largely failed to achieve its goal of confidentiality, it could not constitutionally be applied to punish the newspapers.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens First Amendment protections for the press by establishing that lawfully obtained, truthful information on matters of public concern can rarely be subject to punishment. It extends the principles from cases involving public records (Cox Broadcasting) to information gathered through routine journalistic investigation. The ruling creates a high constitutional barrier for states attempting to protect confidentiality interests, such as juvenile anonymity, by punishing the press. Future laws aiming to restrict such publications will be scrutinized not only for the importance of the state's interest but also for whether the law is narrowly tailored and effective in achieving its purpose.
