Facts
- Massachusetts law required trial courts to exclude the press and public during testimony of victims under 18 in specified sex-offense prosecutions.
- In a Norfolk County rape trial involving allegations of sexual assaults against three minor girls, the judge ordered the courtroom closed during the minors’ testimony under the statute.
- Globe Newspaper Company sought to vacate the closure order, asserting a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials.
- The trial court denied the motion; the trial proceeded and ended in an acquittal.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court construed the statute to mandate closure in all covered cases and upheld the statute against a First Amendment challenge.
- Globe sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the challenge to the closure order was moot after the criminal trial ended.
- Whether a statute requiring automatic closure of a criminal trial during a minor sex-offense victim’s testimony violates the First Amendment right of access to criminal trials, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Decision
- The case was not moot because it was capable of repetition yet evading review.
- The Court held that the First Amendment provides a qualified right of access to criminal trials.
- The Court reversed and ruled the Massachusetts mandatory-closure statute unconstitutional as construed.
- The Court accepted that protecting minor victims’ psychological well-being is a compelling interest, but held that automatic closure is not narrowly tailored.
- The Court required case-specific judicial consideration rather than a categorical rule, including attention to less restrictive alternatives and individualized circumstances.
Legal Principles
- Criminal trials are presumptively open to the public and press under the First Amendment.
- Public access is supported by both historical practice (longstanding openness of criminal trials) and functional benefits (fairness, accuracy, and public confidence).
- Courtroom closure in criminal trials is permissible only when necessitated by a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
- Mandatory closure rules that dispense with individualized findings and consideration of reasonable alternatives fail narrow-tailoring review, even when aimed at protecting minor victims.
- The propriety of closure must be assessed case by case, considering factors such as the minor’s age and maturity, the nature of the offense, the victim’s wishes, and the possibility of less restrictive measures.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court invalidated a statute requiring automatic closure of criminal trials during minor victims’ testimony in certain sex-offense cases, holding that any restriction on access must be justified by a compelling interest and implemented through narrowly tailored, case-specific findings.