## Facts

- Manuel Antonio Noriega was a criminal defendant in a pending federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida.
- Cable News Network, Inc. (CNN) obtained audiotapes of communications between Noriega and his attorneys.
- The district court issued restraining orders barring CNN from broadcasting the tapes, citing concerns about fair-trial rights and attorney–client confidentiality.
- The district court issued the restraint without finding that broadcast would prejudice Noriega’s fair-trial rights, stating a necessity determination was not required unless CNN surrendered the tapes for in camera inspection.
- CNN refused to surrender the tapes and argued the restraint was an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the restraint and the district court’s approach.
- CNN sought a stay of the restraining orders and petitioned for certiorari in the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may enjoin a media organization from publishing alleged attorney–client communications without a threshold showing that publication would threaten a fair trial and that restraint is the only effective means to prevent that harm.
2. Whether a temporary restraint imposed to facilitate in camera review can be entered without first applying the stringent constitutional standards governing prior restraints.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court denied CNN’s application to stay the district court’s restraining orders.
- The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.
- The Court issued no majority opinion; the disposition was by summary order.
- Justice Marshall, joined by Justice O’Connor, dissented, arguing the restraint conflicted with established First Amendment limits on prior restraints.

## Legal Principles

- Denial of certiorari and denial of a stay do not constitute a merits adjudication and do not create a Supreme Court rule governing the constitutional question presented.
- Prior restraints on publication carry a heavy presumption against constitutional validity, and the proponent bears a heavy burden to justify such relief.
- As framed in the dissent, a prior restraint aimed at protecting fair-trial rights must be supported by a threshold showing that publication would cause the threatened harm and that less restrictive measures are inadequate, consistent with the demanding framework used in fair-trial/prior-restraint cases.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s summary denial of a stay and certiorari left intact lower-court restraining orders preventing CNN from broadcasting alleged attorney–client tapes involving Noriega, while a dissent contended that imposing such a restraint without a threshold showing of necessity and narrow tailoring is inconsistent with First Amendment limits on prior restraints.


Cable News Network, Inc. v. Noriega, 498 U.S. 976 (1990)