## Facts

- A television broadcaster reported a jail suicide and aired competing statements about whether conditions in a segregated jail area (“Little Greystone”) caused inmate illness.
- The broadcaster requested permission to inspect and photograph inside Little Greystone; the county sheriff, who controlled jail access, refused.
- The broadcaster and local civil-rights organizations sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the access denial violated the First Amendment.
- After suit was filed, the sheriff adopted monthly public tours of parts of the jail excluding Little Greystone; tours barred cameras and tape recorders, prohibited inmate interviews, and generally kept inmates from direct view.
- Members of the public (including media) could visit an inmate they personally knew under ordinary visitation rules.
- The federal district court preliminarily enjoined the sheriff from denying “reasonable access” to the jail including Little Greystone and from preventing use of recording equipment or inmate interviews; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments provide the news media a constitutional right of access to a county jail beyond that afforded the public generally.
2. Whether a court may compel jail officials to permit filming, sound recording, and interviews with inmates as part of such access.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the preliminary injunction and remanded.
- A plurality concluded the First Amendment does not guarantee a right of access to government information or sources of information within government control.
- The plurality held the press has no special right of access to a jail different from or greater than the public’s access.
- The plurality rejected any constitutional entitlement to enter a jail with cameras or recording devices or to conduct inmate interviews for broadcast.
- A separate concurrence agreed the injunction could not stand, emphasizing that the injunction and record did not justify the compelled access ordered.
- A dissent would have found the sheriff’s restrictions unlawfully curtailed meaningful firsthand observation needed for public oversight.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment protects publication and communication but does not impose a general duty on government to provide access to information or controlled sources.
- The press is generally entitled to no greater access to penal institutions than that available to the public at large.
- Courts should be cautious in ordering operational changes in jail administration; expanded access is ordinarily a policy choice for elected branches, not a constitutional mandate.
- Restrictions on cameras, recording devices, and inmate interviews in jails do not, without more, violate the First Amendment when the press is not given less access than the public.

## Conclusion

The Court held that neither the First nor Fourteenth Amendment grants the media a special or general constitutional right to enter a jail, interview inmates, or use recording equipment beyond access provided to the public, and it set aside an injunction compelling such access.


Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978)