## Facts

- During intense public concern following two similar, highly publicized child murders, Baltimore broadcasters aired reports about Eugene H. James while he was in custody on a murder charge.
- A broadcast announced “Stand by for a sensation” and reported that James had been apprehended, charged, had confessed, had a long criminal record, had reenacted the crime, and had produced the murder weapon.
- A Maryland trial court found the broadcasters guilty of contempt of court and imposed fines based on the broadcasts’ asserted impact on the administration of justice.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that federal constitutional free speech protections, as construed in prior Supreme Court decisions, barred the contempt convictions.
- Maryland petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, arguing the state court misapplied Supreme Court precedent and that review was needed to correct the error.

## Issues

1. What, if anything, does the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari signify about the merits of the lower court’s decision?
2. Whether denial of certiorari should be treated as approval, disapproval, or precedent regarding the constitutional reasoning of the decision below.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- The Court issued an opinion respecting the denial explaining that denial means only that fewer than four Justices deemed review desirable as a matter of judicial discretion.
- The Court stated that denial of certiorari carries no implication about the Court’s views on the merits of the case or the correctness of the lower court’s reasoning.
- The Court explained that denials may rest on many considerations unrelated to merits, including procedural posture, vehicle problems, workload, or a preference to await further lower-court development.
- The Court cautioned that dissents from denial do not reliably indicate how many Justices favored review or what they thought about the merits.
- The Court rejected the expectation that it should provide reasons for certiorari denials, citing impracticality and the burden on the Court’s limited resources.

## Legal Principles

- A denial of certiorari is not a decision on the merits and has no precedential effect regarding the correctness of the judgment or reasoning below.
- The only reliable meaning of a certiorari denial is that fewer than four Justices voted to grant review.
- Because reasons for denying review vary and are often case-specific, no substantive inference should be drawn from a denial, including inferences about constitutional questions presented.
- Separate writings respecting denial (including dissents) do not provide a dependable measure of the Court’s position on the merits or on whether review should have been granted.

## Conclusion

The Court’s denial of certiorari left the state court’s judgment in place for the parties but established that certiorari denials communicate nothing about the merits and cannot be treated as approval or disapproval of the decision below.


Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912 (1950)