## Facts

- CBS and its program *48 Hours* investigated allegedly unsanitary meat-industry practices.
- A Federal Beef employee voluntarily wore undercover camera equipment during a work shift at Federal’s South Dakota plant and was not paid for cooperating.
- CBS obtained videotape of interior meat-packing operations and stated its investigation targeted the industry generally and did not intend to identify the plant as the source.
- Federal sued CBS in South Dakota state court, alleging trespass, breach of duty of loyalty (and aiding and abetting), and trade secret violations under South Dakota law.
- The state trial court issued a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction barring CBS from “disseminating, disclosing, broadcasting, or otherwise revealing” any interior footage.
- The trial court reasoned disclosure could cause severe economic harm (including loss of customers and possible plant closure) and likely irreparable injury from disclosure of confidential or proprietary processes.
- A state appellate court denied a stay, and CBS sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the injunction was an unconstitutional prior restraint.

## Issues

1. Whether a state-court preliminary injunction barring broadcast of news footage constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment.
2. Whether the standards for an emergency stay were met, including likelihood of Supreme Court review, likelihood of success on the merits, and irreparable harm absent a stay.
3. Whether alleged economic injury or asserted confidentiality/trade-secret interests justify suppressing publication rather than allowing post-publication remedies.

## Decision

- Justice Blackmun, acting as Circuit Justice, granted CBS’s emergency application and stayed the state court’s preliminary injunction.
- The injunction was treated as a prior restraint that conflicted with Supreme Court precedent imposing a heavy presumption against such restraints.
- The Court found a reasonable probability the case warranted certiorari and that an indefinite delay of broadcast would cause irreparable harm intolerable under the First Amendment.
- Any harms Federal might suffer from the broadcast were to be addressed through damages or other post-publication relief, not suppression of speech.

## Legal Principles

- Prior restraints on publication carry a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality and face the most demanding justification under the First Amendment.
- Economic or reputational injury, and asserted confidentiality interests, ordinarily do not justify prohibiting publication when post-publication remedies are available.
- For emergency stays of state-court orders restricting speech, relevant considerations include the probability of Supreme Court review, likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to First Amendment interests, and the balance of harms.
- When speech is protected, the preferred remedy for asserted injury is a damages action after publication rather than an injunction preventing dissemination.

## Conclusion

The stay permitted CBS to proceed with broadcast while leaving Federal to pursue its tort and trade-secret claims through post-publication civil remedies, reflecting the strong First Amendment rule against judicial orders that bar publication in advance.


CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315 (1994)