## Facts

- A county school board sued a county board of commissioners, alleging deliberate underfunding of the public school system for the 2006–2007 fiscal year and retaliatory budgeting.
- During the civil case, the trial judge, on the court’s own motion, issued an oral order forbidding the parties and their attorneys from communicating with the news media about the litigation.
- A television news operator that covered the dispute moved to dissolve the gag order and to protect its ability to gather information and report on the case.
- The trial court heard argument on the motion but did not rule immediately; the case proceeded to trial.
- The trial court lifted the gag order when the case was submitted to the jury, before appellate review occurred.
- The media company appealed, challenging the validity and constitutionality of the gag order.

## Issues

1. Whether the appeal was moot because the gag order was lifted before appellate review.
2. Whether the oral gag order restricting parties and counsel from speaking to the press during civil litigation was an unconstitutional prior restraint.
3. Whether the trial court erred by issuing the gag order ex mero motu without specific findings, an evidentiary basis, narrow tailoring, or consideration of less restrictive alternatives.

## Decision

- The court held the appeal was not moot because the challenged action was capable of repetition yet evading review and implicated significant First Amendment interests.
- The court vacated the gag order.
- The court concluded the order functioned as a prior restraint and could not stand absent specific findings showing a compelling need and a restriction narrowly tailored to that need.
- The court found the record lacked articulated reasons, an evidentiary basis, and consideration of less speech-restrictive measures.

## Legal Principles

- Prior restraints on speech are presumptively unconstitutional and require strict scrutiny.
- A gag order restricting trial participants’ speech must be supported by specific findings grounded in the record, justified by a compelling interest (such as preserving a fair trial), and narrowly tailored.
- Trial courts must consider less restrictive alternatives to speech restraints (e.g., voir dire, jury instructions, sequestration, change of venue) before imposing a gag order.
- A challenge to a short-lived trial gag order is not moot where it is capable of repetition yet likely to evade appellate review.

## Conclusion

The court vacated an oral gag order that barred parties and counsel from speaking to the press during a civil trial, holding that the issue remained justiciable despite the order’s expiration and that the order was an unconstitutional, unsupported, and overbroad prior restraint.


Beaufort Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Beaufort Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 183 N.C. App. 615, 645 S.E.2d 857 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)