## Facts

- In 1995, a Boise newspaper published a front-page story about a 1955–56 scandal involving alleged homosexual activity connected to the Boise YMCA.
- The newspaper obtained and reproduced a photographic image of a one-page, handwritten, unsworn statement from a 1956 criminal court file (the “Dir Statement”).
- The Dir Statement alleged that, after a sexual encounter, a teenager discussed “gay affairs” he had with a classmate and with his cousin, Fred Uranga, who was named in the reproduced image.
- The statement was filed in the court’s criminal file and remained available for public inspection for roughly forty years; the underlying criminal case resolved by guilty plea before trial.
- The article’s text paraphrased the statement’s reference to named individuals but did not repeat Uranga’s name; the photographic image displayed his name.
- Uranga, who asserted he had not previously been publicly linked to the scandal, demanded a retraction; the newspaper refused.
- Uranga sued for (1) invasion of privacy based on public disclosure of private facts and (2) reckless infliction of emotional distress, both premised on republication of the Dir Statement.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment permits tort liability for public disclosure of private facts when a newspaper truthfully publishes information lawfully obtained from judicial records open to public inspection.
2. Whether a claim for reckless infliction of emotional distress may proceed when it is based on the same publication that is constitutionally protected speech.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court (on rehearing) affirmed summary judgment for the newspaper.
- The court held the First Amendment barred both claims because the newspaper truthfully published information obtained from judicial records open to public inspection.
- The court rejected the argument that the passage of time or the sensitive nature of the allegation converted information contained in an open court file into constitutionally “private” facts.
- The emotional-distress claim failed because it sought damages for the same protected publication and could not be used to circumvent First Amendment limits on tort liability.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment protects publication of truthful information contained in official government records that are open to public inspection when the information is lawfully obtained.
- State tort doctrines, including privacy and emotional-distress theories, cannot impose liability for constitutionally protected publication of such public-record information absent a recognized constitutional exception.
- Emotional-distress claims may not be used as an indirect means to punish protected speech when the alleged distress arises from the protected publication itself.

## Conclusion

Because the newspaper lawfully obtained and truthfully reproduced information from an open criminal court file, the First Amendment precluded liability for public disclosure of private facts and for reckless infliction of emotional distress, and summary judgment for the newspaper was affirmed.


Uranga v. Federated Publications, Inc., 138 Idaho 550 (Idaho 2003)