Facts
- Two contempt cases were consolidated: one involving labor leader Harry Bridges and one involving the Times-Mirror Company (publisher of the Los Angeles Times) and an editor.
- In the Bridges matter, after an adverse ruling in a labor dispute and while a motion for new trial was pending, Bridges sent a telegram stating that the union would strike if the decision were enforced and arranged for its publication.
- A California court treated the published telegram as an attempt to pressure the judiciary and adjudged Bridges in contempt, imposing a fine.
- In the Times-Mirror matter, while two union members awaited sentencing in a pending criminal case, the newspaper published editorials commenting on the case and the upcoming sentencings.
- California courts held the publisher and editor in contempt and fined them on the theory that the editorials had a tendency to interfere with the fair and orderly administration of justice.
- The California Supreme Court affirmed the contempt judgments under a common-law “tendency” approach for out-of-court publications concerning pending proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to punish out-of-court publications about pending judicial proceedings as contempt based on an “inherent” or “reasonable” tendency to interfere with justice.
- Whether contempt sanctions for such publications require proof of a clear and present danger of an extremely serious and imminent harm to the administration of justice.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the contempt convictions in both cases.
- The Court held that the “inherent tendency” or “reasonable tendency” of a publication to interfere with judicial proceedings is insufficient to justify contempt punishment.
- The Court required a showing that the threatened substantive evil is extremely serious and the likelihood of occurrence is of extremely high imminence before speech may be punished.
- Applying that standard, the publications at issue did not pose a sufficiently serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice to permit contempt sanctions.
Legal Principles
- The freedoms of speech and press protected against federal abridgment by the First Amendment are protected against state abridgment through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Out-of-court commentary on pending cases cannot be punished as contempt absent a clear and present danger of an extremely serious substantive evil with extremely high imminence.
- Contempt standards that punish publications merely because they “tend” to interfere with justice are unconstitutional because they authorize suppression of protected criticism and discussion.
- Protecting judicial integrity does not justify silencing public discussion of pending litigation without a demonstrated serious and imminent threat to fair adjudication.
Conclusion
The Court held that California’s contempt sanctions for published comments about pending proceedings violated the First Amendment because the state relied on a mere “tendency” test rather than proving an extremely serious and imminently threatened harm to the administration of justice.