![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Originalism explores the intentions for, or understandings of, constitutional rights held by drafters of the Constitution or founders of the United States. This qualitative historical analysis evaluates the accuracy and adequacy of U.S. Supreme Court justices’ citations of founders’ intentions for, or understandings of, free press rights in opinions addressing journalists’ rights to cover and access court proceedings. Our research found that justices some times have accurately and adequately cited founders’ writings. Yet, justices too often have cited court opinions and other documents from the 1800s or 1900s to support their assertions about original intentions for or understandings of freedom of speech or of the press and First Amendment values. When referencing writings by founders, justices sometimes provided inadequate context. Such practices have harmed the accuracy of legal and historical records. To improve accuracy in future opinions, justices need to stop citing sections of previous opinions that lack accurate citation, adequate citation, or proper context.
Notes
1 This article uses Jack Rakove’s description of founders, incorporating those who participated in the Constitutional Convention, attended the First Federal Congress, or drafted amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution 8–9 (1997). See also Brennan’s statement that “the constitution carries the gloss of history” in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 589 (1980) (Brennan, J., concurring).
2 See, e.g., Derigan Silver, The Framers’ First Amendment: Originalist Citations in U.S. Supreme Court Freedom of Expression Opinions, 88 Journalism & Mass Commc’n Q. 99 (2011), and Derigan Silver & Dan V. Kozlowski, The First Amendment Originalism of justices Brennan, Scalia and Thomas, 17 Commc’n L. & Pol’y 385 (2012).
3 See, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 579–80.
4 Id. (citing The Federalist No. 84 (Hamilton) (1788), and Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (17 October 1788), in 5 Writings of James Madison 271 (Gaillard Hunt, ed. 1904)).
5 Id.
6 Silver & Kozlowski, supra note 2, at 387.
7 See, e.g., Vincent Blasi, Freedom of Speech in the History of Ideas: Landmark Cases, Historic Essays, and Recent Developments (2016); Thomas I. Emerson, Colonial Intentions and Current Realities of the First Amendment, 125 Univ. Pa. L. Rev. 737, 737 (1977); Leonard Levy, Emergence of a Free Press (2004) and Henry Schofield, Freedom of the Press in the United States, 11 The Proceedings of the Am. Sociol. Soc’y 67 (1914), in Harold L. Nelson, Freedom of the Press from Hamilton to the Warren Court, 42–59 (1967).
8 See, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 579–80 (citing Madison, supra note 4, at 271); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court of Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 604 (1982) (Brennan, J., concurring) (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 579–80 and n. 16); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. for the Cty of Riverside, 464 U.S. 501, 510–11, n. 4 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 31–32 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside, 478 U.S. 1, 22 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 569 and Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 505, 508–9, n. 8).
9 See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 264 (1941); and 1 Annals of Congress 1789–1790, 434.
10 205 U.S. 454 (1907).
11 See, e.g., American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians, Joint OAH-AHA Statement on the Dobbs v. Jackson Decision, July 2022, https://www.historians.org/news-and-advocacy/aha-advocacy/history-the-supreme-court-and-dobbs-v-jackson-joint-statement-from-the-aha-and-the-oah-(july-2022).
12 See infra text accompanying notes 162 to 406.
13 See infra text accompanying notes 26 to 158.
14 See infra text accompanying notes 162 to 213.
15 See infra text accompanying notes 216 to 406.
16 See infra text accompanying notes 408 to 438.
17 See, infra text accompanying notes 413 to 416.
18 See, e.g., Frank B. Cross, The Ideology of Supreme Court Opinions and Citations, 97 Iowa L. Rev. 693, 717–18 (2011–2012) (studying characteristics of citation in court opinions); Charles A. Johnson, Citations to Authority in Supreme Court Opinions, 7 L. & Pol’y 509 (1985) (examining the number, age, and direction of citations used in majority opinions); Yonatan Lupu & James H. Fowler, Strategic Citations to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court, 42 J. Legal Stud. 151, 162–81 (2013) (researching Supreme Court justices’ citation practices and ideologies); Lawrence M. Friedman et al., State Supreme Courts: A Century of Style and Citation, 33 Stan. L. Rev. 773 (1980–1981) (evaluating citation patterns related to the authorities cited by 48 state appellate courts over the span of a century).
19 John Henry Merryman, The Authority of Authority: What the California Supreme Court Cited in 1950, 6 Stan. L. Rev. 613, 613 (finding a tendency for California Supreme Court justices to cite recent precedent).
20 William M. Landes et al., Judicial Influence: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeals Judges, 27 J. of Legal Stud. 271, 274 (1998).
21 Frank B. Cross et al., Citations in The U.S. Supreme Court: An Empirical Study of Their Use and Significance, 2010 Univ. Ill. L. Rev. 489, 491.
22 See James D. Startt &Wm. David Sloan, Historical Methods in Mass Communication 53–56 (2019) (providing an excellent explanation of historical analysis). This article does not focus on Supreme Court discussions of history and Framers’ intentions in relation to Sixth Amendment rights, as were discussed in In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 267–68 (1948) and Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 386–87 (1979).
23 When possible, the authors reviewed the precise version of sources Supreme Court justices cited. In some instances, justices did not provide adequate information for the authors to be able to identify and find sources cited in Supreme Court opinions. In other instances, such as when accessing state constitutions from the 1700s, the authors had to access primary sources available via different media.
24 V. Pavlovic et al., How Accurate Are Citations of Frequently Cited Papers in Biomedical Literature?, 135 Clin. Sci. 671 (2021).
25 See infra text accompanying notes 26 to158.
26 Susan T. Fiske et al., The Novice and the Expert: Knowledge-Based Strategies in Political Cognition, 19 J. of Experimental Social Psych. 382 (1983).
27 See, e.g., Silver, supra note 2, and Silver & Kozlowski, supra note 2.
28 Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (1974), and Dennis Chong & James N. Druckman, Framing Theory, 10 Annual Rev. of Pol. Science 104 (2007).
29 Goffman, supra note 28, at 22.
30 Gaye Tuchman, Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality 195 (1980).
31 Goffman, supra note 28, at 22, and Chong & Druckman, supra note 28, at 104.
32 Id.
33 See id. and Chong & Druckman, supra note 28, at 104.
34 Woodrow Hartzog, The Fight to Frame Privacy, 111 Mich. L. Rev. 1021, 1022 (2013) (book review) (citing Judith D. Fischer, Got Issues? An Empirical Study About Framing Them, 6 J. Ass’n Legal Writing Directors 1, 3 (2009); Chris Guthrie, Prospect Theory, Risk Preference, and the Law, 97 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1115, 1128 (2003); Jonathan Rey Nash & Stephanie M. Stern, Property Frames, 87 Wash. U. L. Rev. 449 (2010); Cass R. Sunstein, Moral Heuristics and Moral Framing, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 1556, 1559 (2004); Daniel M. Isaacs, Note, Baseline Framing in Sentencing, 121 Yale L.J. 426 (2011)). Communication law scholar Clay Calvert and Justin B. Hayes also explained framing in a study of judicial deference in First Amendment jurisprudence. Clay Calvert & Justin B. Hayes, To Defer or Not to Defer—Deference and Its Differential Impact on First Amendment Rights in the Roberts Court, 63 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 13, 17 (2012).
35 Tuchman, supra note 30, at 166.
36 Id.
37 Id. See also Thomas Schroth, The Role of the Press in a Democratic Government, in Journalism Readings in the Mass Media (Allen Kirschner & Linda Kirschner eds., 1971).
38 Silver & Kozlowski, supra note 2, at 387 (quoting Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law 38 (1997) (internal quotes omitted)).
39 Scalia, supra note 38, at 38.
40 See, e.g., Rakove, supra note 1, at 8–9.
41 See, e.g., id.
42 See, e.g., Silver, supra note 2 and Silver & Kozlowski, supra note 2.
43 Id.
44 Edwin Meese III, Address to the American Bar Association, August 16, 1985.
45 William Brennan, Speech at the Text and Teaching Symposium, Georgetown University, October 12, 1985.
46 Id.
47 Matthew D. Bunker & Clay Calvert, Contrasting Concurrences of Clarence Thomas: Deploying Originalism and Paternalism in Commercial Speech and Student Speech Cases, 26 Ga. St. Univ. L. Rev. 321, 330, 34 (2012) (quotation marks omitted).
48 Rodney A. Smolla, Free Speech in an Open Society 27–39 (1992).
49 Silver, supra note 2, at 102.
50 RonNell Andersen Jones & Sonja R. West, The U.S. Supreme Court’s Characterizations of the Press: An Empirical Study, 100 N. C. L. Rev. 387, 375–429 (2022).
51 Id.
52 Silver, supra note 2, at 100–06 (indicating the Justice’s use of that quote without proper context provided one example of justices using a framer’s statement “as a legal authority and guide to judicial decision making even when the quote has little or nothing to do with the constitutional issue being considered”).
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Silver & Kozlowski, supra note 2, at 418–24.
56 Id.
57 Id.
58 1 Annals of Congress 1789–1790, 434 (describing fair trial rights and free press rights as great rights). The history of First Amendment rights is especially important to First Amendment court access rights. In Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside County, 478 U.S. 1, 9 (1986), Chief Justice Burger explained an “experience and logic” test for a qualified right of access. Burger reasoned that “history and experience shape the functioning of governmental processes.” Id.
59 See, e.g., Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Free Speech in the United States (1967); Leonard W. Levy, Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History: Legacy of Suppression (1963); and Smolla, supra note 48, at 27–39.
60 See, e.g., David A. Copeland, The Idea of a Free Press (2006); Randall P. Bezanson, Taxes on Knowledge in America 55–87 (1994), and Rakove, supra note 1, at 8–9.
61 See generally Copeland, supra note 60, and Bezanson, supra note 60.
62 See, e.g., David L. Lange, The Speech and Press Clauses, 23 UCLA L. Rev. 77, 92 (1975).
63 Id.
64 Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Free Speech: And Its Relation to Self-Government by Alexander Meiklejohn, 62 Harv. L. Rev. 891, 898 (1949) (book review).
65 Id.
66 Id.
67 See, e.g., Smolla, supra note 48, at 33.
68 Emerson, supra note 7, at 737.
69 Chafee, supra note 59, at 5.
70 Id. at 16.
71 Smolla, supra note 48, at 33-39.
72 Id.
73 Michael T. Gibson, The Supreme Court and Freedom of Expression from 1791 to 1917, 55 Fordham L. Rev. 263, 329 (1986).
74 Id.
75 Leonard W. Levy, Original Intent and The Framers’ Constitution 153–56 (1988); Levy, supra note 7, at 227–28.
76 Levy, supra note 7, at 229–30.
77 Id.
78 Id. at 231–35.
79 Schofield, supra note 7, at 54. Free speech expert Zachariah Chafee, Jr., wrote that Schofield’s article provides “the best discussion of the legal meaning” of press freedom in the United States. Chafee, Freedom of Speech in War Time, 32 Harv. L. Rev. 932, n. 4 (1919).
80 See, e.g., Bunker & Calvert, supra note 47 at 333 (citing Smolla, supra note 48, at 32–33).
81 Schofield, supra note 7, at 44–47.
82 Id. at 45 (quoting William Blackstone, 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 151–32. (1769)).
83 Id. at 46 (citing Respublica v. Oswald, 1 U.S. 319 (Pa. 1788)).
84 Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Blanding, 3 Pick. 304 (Mass. 1825)).
85 Id. at 47 (citing Patterson v. People of State of Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of State of Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907)).
86 Gibson, supra note 73, at 287.
87 Bunker & Calvert, supra note 47, at 333 (citing Smolla, supra note 48, at 32–33).
88 Id. (quoting Smolla, supra note 48, at 32–33, as stating “If Blackstone’s view of free speech was the real original meaning of the First Amendment, then arguably 90 percent of modern free speech jurisprudence—which goes well beyond Blackstone’s prohibition against prior restraints—is intellectually dishonest and historically illegitimate”).
89 Vincent Blasi, The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory, 2 Am. Bar Found. 521, 535–36 (1977).
90 Id.
91 Chafee, supra note 79, at 939–40.
92 See, e.g., Levy, supra note 59, at 182 (stating that states other than Pennsylvania and Virginia did not restrict or abandon seditious libel).
93 Id. at 173–79.
94 Id.
95 John E. Semonche, Keeping The Faith: A Cultural History of The U.S. Supreme Court 54–55 (1998).
96 Id.
97 Id.
98 Id.
99 Chafee, supra note 64, at 936.
100 Id.
101 See, e.g., Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
102 Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government 30–34. (1948).
103 Id. at 32.
104 Id. at 33.
105 Id. at 14–16.
106 Id. at 16–17, 90–91.
107 Id. at 14–16, 88–90.
108 Victor Pickard, Democracy Without Journalism? Confronting the Misinformation Society 15–16 (2019).
109 See infra text accompanying notes 111 to 158.
110 See infra text accompanying notes 111 to 158.
111 Emerson, supra note 7, at 742–43, and Thomas I. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 7 (1970).
112 Blasi, supra note 89, at 535–36 (quoting Letter from the First Continental Congress to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec (October 1774), in The Bill of Rights: Documentary History 221 (Bernard Schwartz ed., 1971).
113 Levy, supra note 7, at 193.
114 Emerson, supra note 7, at 742.
115 Blasi, supra note 89, at 560 (quotation marks omitted).
116 See, e.g., David A. Anderson, The Origins of the Press Clauses, 30 UCLA L. Rev. 455, 475–83 (1983), Sonja R. West, The Press, Then and Now, 77 Ohio St. L. J. 49, 54 (2016), and Levy, supra note 7, at 183.
117 Anderson, supra note 116, at 475–83.
118 West, supra note 116, at 54.
119 Id. at 69.
120 Id.
121 Id. at 64 (citing press historian Jeffrey Smith’s statement, “Press freedom of its infancy consisted of many strands and many colors”). See Jeffrey A. Smith, Printers And Press Freedom: The Ideology of Early American Journalism 166 (1988).
122 Anderson, supra note 116, at 491–94 (quoting Justice Potter Stewart’s assertion from Or of the Press, 26 Hastings L. J. 631, 663 (1975)). Stewart served on the Supreme Court from 1958 to 1981. Stewart often took a moderate position on court decisions. Practicing judicial restraint, Stewart often served as the swing vote to many contentious Court decisions. See Terrance Sandalow, Potter Stewart, 95 Harv. L. Rev. 6 (1981).
123 Anderson, supra note 116, at 491–94.
124 Id.
125 Id. (quoting Justice Potter Stewart from Stewart, supra note 122, at 634).
126 Stewart, supra note122, at 634–37.
127 Id.
128 Id.
129 Id.
130 Blasi, supra note 89, at 537 (citing Leonard W. Levy, Freedom of the Press from Zenger to Jefferson: Early American Libertarian Theories 341–42, 376 (1966).
131 Id.
132 Alan Dershowitz, Finding, Framing, and Hanging Jefferson: A Lost Letter, A Remarkable Discovery, and Freedom of Speech in an Age of Terrorism 61–74 (2008) (arguing that Jefferson’s writings on press freedom voiced different views over time).
133 Blasi, supra note 89, at 535–36 (citing an Letter from the First Continental Congress to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec (October 1774) and a speech Madison gave June 8, 1979).
134 See, e.g., Lange, supra note 62, at 90–91, and Dwight Teeter, Press Freedom and the Public Printing: Pennsylvania, 1775–83, 45 Journalism Q. 445, 451 (Fall 1968).
135 Lange, supra note 62, at 90–91.
136 Teeter, supra note 134, at 445–51.
137 Id.
138 Id.
139 James Carey, The Problem of Journalism History, 1 Journalism Hist. 3 (1974).
140 Id.
141 Id.
142 Id.
143 Tuchman, supra note 30, at 165–66. See also John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (2020).
144 Tuchman, supra note 30, at 165–66.
145 Id.
146 Emerson, supra note 7, at 740 (quoting 2 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 546 (J. Boyd et al. eds, 1950–1974)).
147 Mill, supra note 143, at 18.
148 Id. at 13.
149 Emerson, supra note 111, at 7.
150 Id.
151 Id.
152 Id.
153 Schofield, supra note 7, at 44–45.
154 See, e.g., Meiklejohn, supra note 102, 30–34.
155 Blasi, supra note 89, at 621. See also West, supra note 116, at 89.
156 See, e.g., Tuchman, supra note 30, at 165-166 and Emerson, supra note 7, at 740–41.
157 Emerson, supra note 7, at 742–43; Emerson, supra note 111, at 7.
158 See, e.g., id., at 737 (stating “History is seldom simple or forthright. … It is by no means clear exactly what the colonists had in mind, or just what they expected from the guarantee of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition”).
159 See infra text accompanying notes 162 to 433.
160 See, e.g., Brennan’s statement that “the constitution carries the gloss of history” in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 589 (1980) (Brennan, J., concurring).
161 See infra text accompanying notes 162 to 215.
162 See, e.g., Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 18 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245–50 (1936)); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. of Norfolk Cty, 457 U.S. 596, 604 (1982) (citing Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S 88, 95 (1940)); Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 589 (Brennan, J., concurring) at 585 (directing readers to see Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348, 364 (1980) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 558–59 and 590 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971) (per curiam opinion); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 715–16 (1931)); Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, n. 17 (1976) (suggesting readers see, e.g., Near, 283 U.S. at 713–14, and Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 245–50); and Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 384, 388 (1962) (citing Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95).
163 Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 102; Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 245–49; Near, 293 U.S. at 714; Patterson, 205 U.S. at 462.
164 See infra text accompanying notes 167 to 215.
165 Patterson, 205 U.S. at 454–462.
166 Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
167 Patterson, 205 U.S. at 458–64 (citing Respublica v. Oswald, 1 U.S. 319 (Pa. 1788); Commonwealth v. Blanding, 3 Pick. 304 (Mass. 1825); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875); Osborne v. Cty of Adams, 109 U.S. 1 (1883)).
168 Patterson, 205 U.S. at 462 (citing Respublica, 1 U.S. at 325).
169 Id. at 462 (citing Respublica, 1 U.S. at 325). But cf. Patterson, 205 U.S. at 465 (Harlan, J., dissenting) (stating, “The public welfare cannot override constitutional privileges, and if the rights of free speech and of a free press are, in their essence, attributes of national citizenship … neither Congress nor any state, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, can … impair or abridge them.”).
170 3 Pick. at 314.
171 Gibson, supra note 73, at 287–88 (citing David S. Bogen, The Free Speech Metamorphosis of Mr. Justice Holmes, 11 Hofstra L. Rev 97, 98–99 (1982) (quoting Letter from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to Zechariah Chafee, Jr. (June 12, 1922), Box 14, folder 12, Zechariah Chafee, Jr. Papers (on file at Manuscript Division, Harvard Law School Library)).
172 Schofield, supra note 7, at 44–47 (citing Patterson v. People of State of Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of State of Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907)).
173 283 U.S. 697, 708 (1931). See also Thomas I. Emerson, The Doctrine of Prior Restraint, 20 L. & Contemp. Probs, 648, 653–54 (1955).
174 Near, 283 U.S. at 713. The Court cited Patterson v. People of State of Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of State of Colorado, 205 U.S. at 454 (1907) (citing 4 The Report of 1800, in The Papers of James Madison, 31 March 1797- 3 March 1801 and supplement 22 January 1778–9 August 1795, 17, 303–51 (David B. Mattern et al., eds., 1991); Commonwealth v. Blanding, 3 Pick. 304 (Mass. 1825); and Respublica v. Oswald, 1 U.S. 319 (Pa. 1788)).
175 Near, 283 U.S. at 713 (citing Blackstone, supra note 82, at 151–52 (1769)).
176 Id. at 713–23.
177 Schofield, supra note 7, at 54; Blasi, supra note 89, at 535–36.
178 Near, 283 U.S. at 714 (quoting Report on the Virginia Resolutions, in IV Madison's Works 543).
179 Id. at 716–17 (citing Letter from The Continental Congress to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec (October 1774), in 1 Journals of the Continental Congress 104, 108 (1904 ed.) and Report on the Virginia Resolutions, supra note 178, at 544).
180 Id. at 717.
181 Id.
182 Levy, supra note 7, at 193.
183 Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245–49 (1936).
184 Id. at 245.
185 Id. (citing 6 Hansard’s Parliamentary History of England 1063 (originally published 1803); Collett Dodson, 1 History of the Taxes on Knowledge 8–10 (originally published 1899); Thomas Erskine May, 2 Constitutional Hist. of England 245 (7th ed.) (originally published 1899); John Milton, Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing (1644); William Stewart, John Lennox and the ‘Greencock Newsclout’: A Fight Against the Taxes on Knowledge, 15 Scottish Historical Rev. 322, 322–27 (1918).
186 Id. (citing Milton, supra note 185).
187 Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 248.
188 Id. at 246–48.
189 Id. at 247.
190 Id. at 248.
191 Id. at 250.
192 Id. at 248. After directing readers to see the Pennsylvania Constitution and federal Constitution from 1788, Sutherland wrote, “It is impossible to concede that, by the words freedom of the press, the [F]ramers of the amendment intended to adopt merely the narrow view then reflected by the law of England that such freedom consisted only in immunity from previous censorship.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
193 Id. at 246–50.
194 310 U.S. 88 (1940). Murphy was a strong defender of the First Amendment, especially the religion clause. See Howard J., Woodford, Jr., Mr. Justice Murphy: A Political Biography (1968). Murphy, however, penned Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (describing a fighting-words exception to the First Amendment that excludes speech that “tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace” from the scope of First Amendment protection).
195 Thornhill, 310 U.S. at n. 12 (quoting Letter From The First Continental Congress to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec (October 1774), in 1 Journals of the Continental Congress 104, 108 (1904)).
196 Id. at 102 (directing readers to see Clyde Duniway, The Development of Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts 123 et seq. (1906); Moses Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution passim (1897); 2 George Bancroft, History of the United States 261 (1854); and Henry Schofield, Freedom of the Press in the United States, 9 Proc. Am. Sociol. Soc. 67, 76, 80 (1914)).
197 Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 102 (citing Letter From The Continental Congress to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec (October 1774), supra note 195, at 108).
198 Id. at 95.
199 Id. (directing readers to compare Murphy’s assertion to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152–53 (1938)).
200 Letter From James Madison to W. T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-02-02-0480.
201 Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95 (directing readings to compare what he wrote to Carolene Products, 304 U.S. at 152–53).
202 384 U.S. 214, 219 (1966).
203 Id.
204 Id.
205 Id. (citing Lovell v. City of Griffin, Ga., 303 U.S. 444 (1938)).
206 Lovell, 303 U.S. at 448–52.
207 Id. at 451 (citing Milton, supra note 185).
208 Id. (directing readers to see William H. Wickwar, The Struggle for the Freedom of the Press: 1819–1823, 15 (1928)).
209 Zachariah Chafee, The Struggle for the Freedom of the Press: 1819–1832 (1928), 23 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 1027 (1929) (book review).
210 Mills v. Alabama 384 U.S. 214, 219 (1966); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 95 (1940); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 246-49 (1936).
211 Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 717 (1931) and Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 102 cited the Letter From The First Continental Congress to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec (October 1774), supra note 195, at 106. Levy later wrote that the letter was not for the colonies. Levy, supra note 7 at 192.
212 Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95. See Letter From James Madison to W. T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-02-02-0480.
213 Mills, 384 U.S. at 219.
214 See infra text accompanying notes 216 to 406.
215 See, e.g., Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 513–15 (1951) and Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941).
216 See infra text accompanying notes 218 to 272.
217 Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 383–84 (1962); Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 355–56 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Bridges, 314 U.S. at 258–64. This section does not discuss Craig v. Harney because Craig does not address founders, Framers, original intent, or historical purposes for freedom of the press. Rather, Justice Douglas, however, wrote in the majority opinion: “The history of the power to punish for contempt and the unequivocal command of the First Amendment serve as constant reminders that freedom of speech and of the press should not be impaired through the exercise of that power.” Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 369–73 (1947) (citing Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33 (1941) and Bridges, 314 U.S. 252).
218 Bridges, 314 U.S. at 258–64 (addressing two cases in which the Superior Court of Los Angeles County found people guilty and fined them for contempt of court for making comments on pending litigation. The majority decided that the Superior Court of California violated the First Amendment. The decision applied the “clear and present danger” test). See also Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia 448 U.S. 555, n. 14 (1980) (directing readers to see Bridges, 314 U.S. at 263–65); Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, n. 17. (1976) (suggesting readers see, e.g., Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 713–14 (1931); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245–50 (1936); Bridges, 314 U.S. at 263–64; and Wood, 370 U.S. at 384, n. 5; Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S 333, 350 (1966) (Bridges, 314 U.S. at 265; Wood, 370 U.S. at 383–84 (citing Bridges, 314 U.S. at 263–68)).
219 Bridges, 314 U.S. at 260. Justice Hugo Black served on the Supreme Court from 1937 to 1971. Black relied heavily on interpretations of historical intent and textual interpretations of the Bill of Rights. See Timothy L. Hall, Hugo Lafayette Black (1886–1971), in Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary 303–6 (2001).
220 Bridges, 314 U.S. at 264.
221 Id.
222 Id. (citing 6 The Writings of James Madison 1790–1802, 387 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1906)).
223 Id. at 265 (directing readers to compare what he wrote to Madison, supra note 222, at 387). The footnote also directed readers to see Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 716–17 (1931), and Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940).
224 Bridges, 314 U.S. at 264 (citing Madison’s statements in 1 Annals of Congress 434 (1789–1790)).
225 See, e.g., Matthew D. Bunker & Clay Calvert, supra note 47, at 330, 34 (2012); Smolla, supra note 48, at 27–39; Silver, supra note 2, at 102.
226 Bridges, 314 U.S. at 265.
227 Id.
228 Id. at 265, n. 10 (directing readers to compare what he wrote to what Madison wrote in Madison, supra note 222, at 387).
229 Madison, supra note 222, at 387.
230 See Bridges, 314 U.S. at 265.
231 Id. at 279 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). Felix Frankfurter served on the Supreme Court from 1939 to 1962. He believed in a strict interpretation of the “law,” sometimes leading him to make decisions that were counter to his personal beliefs, See Thomas Halper, Felix Frankfurter and the Law, 7 British J. of Am. Legal Studies 115 (2018). Throughout his judicial career, Frankfurter often looked up to Justice Holmes and Justice Brandeis. See Liva Baker, Felix Frankfurter, 39, 50, 223 (1969) (stating “Holmes [and] Brandeis … shaped the thought and life of Felix Frankfurter”). For more information about Frankfurter and Brandeis’s relationship, see Erin Coyle et al. How Publicity Friends Fought for Louis D. Brandeis’s 1916 Supreme Court Confirmation, 37 Am. Journalism 165, 168–72 (2020).
232 Bridges, 314 U.S. at 279 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
233 Id. at 279–80.
234 Id. at 282–83 (directing readers to compare his assertion to Justice Holmes’s writing in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)).
235 Id. at 284.
236 Id.
237 Id. at 300.
238 Id.
239 Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 355–56 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). The Court overturned a citation issued after the Miami Herald published editorials and a cartoon that cast Florida judges in a negative light. The Court found that the publications did not present a “clear and present danger” and the citation violated the First Amendment.
240 Id. at 355 (quoting The Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Massachusetts art. XXIX (1780)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
241 Id.
242 Id.
243 Id. at 355–56 (directing readers to see Carl L. Becker, Freedom and Responsibility in the American Way of Life (1945)).
244 Id. at 355–56 & n. 4 (stating this theme appeared in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)) (citing The Federalist, No. 77 (Hamilton) (1788) (stating “The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy”)). Frankfurter did not cite the Myers majority opinion, written by Chief Justice William Howard Taft, that referred to Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Rather, Frankfurter directed readers to see Chief Justice Taft’s opinion in Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 119–22 (1925) (stating that the U.S. Constitution does not require the three branches of government to be independent or separated). Id. at n. 4.
245 Myers, 272 U.S. at 240–54 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Brandeis served on the Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939. He believed in a “living Constitution,” meaning interpretations of the Constitution could change. See Melvin I. Urofsky, Louis D. Brandeis: A Life (2009). For more information about Brandeis’s philosophy on freedom of expression, see Erin Coyle, Sunlight and Shadows, 33 Touro L. Rev. 211, 236–50, (2017), and Erin Coyle, The Moral Duty of Publicity, 35 Journalism Hist. 162, 163–65 (2009).
246 Pennekamp, 328 U.S. at 356 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
247 Id. at n. 5.
248 See, e.g., Massachusetts Constitution art. XVI (1780); New Hampshire Bill of Rights art. XXII (1784).
249 Massachusetts Constitution art. XVI (1780); New Hampshire Bill of Rights art. XXII (1784).
250 A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the State of Vermont art. XIII (1777).
251 The West Virginia Bill of Rights does allow for punishing publication of obscenity, libel, and defamation. Constitution of the State of West Virginia art. II-4 (1863).
252 The Virginia Declaration of Rights § XII (1776).
253 See, e.g., Massachusetts Constitution art. XVI (1780); New Hampshire Bill of Rights art. XXII (1784).
254 See Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 350–56 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
255 Constitution of North Carolina Declaration of Rights § XV (1776).
256 Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights and Constitution § XII (1776).
257 Delaware Declaration of Rights § XXIII (1776); Constitution of Georgia § LXI (1777); Constitution of Maryland Declaration of Rights § XXXVIII (1776); and Constitution of South Carolina § XLIII (1778).
258 Constitution of Georgia § LXI (1777), and Constitution of South Carolina § XLIII (1778).
259 370 U.S. 375, 383–84 (1962) (citing Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263–68 (1941) and directing readers to see source materials on this subject in secondary sources, including Zachariah Chafee Jr., Free Speech in the United States (1941); James B. Thayer, Legal Control of the Press 483 (3d ed. 1956); and Eberhard P. Deutsch, Liberty of Expression and Contempt of Court, 27 Minn. L. Rev. 296 (1943)). The Supreme Court applied the “clear and present danger” standard to address public discussions regarding grand jury proceedings. The Court held that the public, including public officials, could discuss jury proceedings if those discussions do not create an immediate threat to a trial. Warren made those statements when recognizing a sheriff’s right to publicly criticize a judge’s order for a grand jury “to investigate negro bloc voting” in a manner that did not “present a danger to the administration of justice.” Id.
260 Chief Justice Earl Warren served on the Supreme Court from 1953 to 1969. Warren frequently addressed the Bill of Rights in decisions that expanded criminal defendants’ rights. See Daniel B. Rodriguez, Earl Warren, in The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary 509 (Melvin L. Urofsky ed., 1994).
261 Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, n. 5 (1962) (citing Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263–68 (1941), and directing readers to see Zecharia Chafee, Jr., Free Speech in the United States c. 1 (1941); Sir John Charles Fox, The History of Contempt of Court (1927); Arthur J. Stansbury, Trial of James H. Peck (1833); Frank Thayer, Legal Control of the Press 483 et seq. (3d ed. 1956); Eberhard P. Deutsch, Liberty of Expression and Contempt of Court, 27 Minn. L. Rev. 296 (1943); and Walter Nelles & Carol Weiss King, Contempt by Publication in the United States, 28 Col. L. Rev. 401, 525 (1928)).
262 Id. at 384 (quoting Bridges, 314 U.S. at 265) (internal quotation marks omitted).
263 Id. at 387–88 (citing Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 95 (1940)).
264 Id. (quoting Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 102) (internal quotation marks omitted). See Emerson, supra note 111, at 7.
265 Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 102 (citing directing readers to see Duniway, supra note 196, 123 et seq. (1906); Tyler, supra note 184, at passim; 2 Bancroft, supra note 196, at 261; and Schofield, supra note 196, at 76, 80). See also Emerson, supra note 111, at 7.
266 Id. (citing Letter From The First Continental Congress to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec (October 1774), in I Journals of the Continental Congress 104, 108 (1904)).
267 Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 388 (1962) (citing Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95); Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 355 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 284 (1941) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)).
268 See, e.g., Pennekamp, 328 U.S. at 355–56 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (citing The Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Massachusetts art. XXIX (1780)), and Bridges, 314 U.S. at 265 (quoting Madison, supra note 222, at 387).
269 Wood, 370 U.S. at 388 (citing Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95); Pennekamp, 328 U.S. at 355–56 & n. 4 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (citing Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)).
270 Bridges, 314 U.S. at 265; Pennekamp, 328 U.S. at n.5 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
271 Pennekamp, 328 U.S. at 350–56 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
272 Wood, 370 U.S. at 388 (citing Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95); Pennekamp, 328 U.S. at 355–56 & n. 4, 5 (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (citing Myers, 272 U.S. at 293 (Brandeis, J., dissenting)); Bridges, 314 U.S. at 265.
273 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v, Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 589–90 (1980) (Brennan, J., concurring); Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 547–48, 586–87 (1976); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 349–50 (1966). This section does not discuss other Supreme Court opinions that focus on fair trial issues related to press conduct, such as Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963), that do not discuss the historical purpose, meaning, or intentions for press freedom.
274 See infra text accompanying notes 280 to 340.
275 Wood, 370 U.S. at 375.
276 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966). Sheppard v addressed an osteopathic surgeon’s habeas corpus claim regarding whether he had not received a fair trial. The Court concluded that Samuel H. Sheppard had not received a fair trial in part due to the judge’s failure to isolate the jury from massive publicity before and during Sheppard’s 1954 trial and the judge’s failure to protect the decorum of the trial proceedings. Id. at 335–63.
277 Id. at 350 (citing Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 265 (1941)). Justice Tom C. Clark served on the Supreme Court from 1949 to 1967. Nominated by President Harry S. Truman to fill the vacancy left by Justice Murphy’s death, Clark’s appointment was met with criticism because of his lack of prior judicial experience. See Alexander Wohl, Father, Son and Constitution—How Justice Tom Clark and Attorney General Ramsey Clark Shaped American Democracy (2013). Clark was known for making liberal and conservative decisions, thus marking him as one of the least ideological Supreme Court justices. See Frances Howell Rudko, Truman's Court: A Study in Judicial Restraint 91 (1988). Clark supported the notion that the Constitution was a “living instrument.” Tom C. Clark, The Court and Its Functions, 34 Albany L. Rev. 497, 501 (1970).
278 Sheppard, 384 U.S at 350 (quoting Bridges, 314 U.S. at 265 (internal quotation marks omitted).
279 Id. at 349 (quoting Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 377 (1947)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
280 Id. at 349–50.
281 Blasi, supra note 89, at 527–36 and West, supra note 116, at 54.
282 Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 349–50 (citing In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948)).
283 In re Oliver, 333 U.S. at 267. In other sections of the opinion, Justice Douglas cited scholarship and legal sources that addressed American and English law. Id. at 266–71.
284 Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 350 (stating “The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism”). For more information about Sheppard v. Maxwell and journalists’ advocacy to reject government secrecy, see Erin K. Coyle, Press Freedom and Citizens’ Right to Know in the 1960s: Sam Ragan’s Crusade to Provide the Public with Access to Criminal Justice Information, 43 Journalism Hist. 44 (2017), and Erin K. Coyle, Turning Point: Balancing Free Press and Fair Trial Rights after Sheppard v. Maxwell, 44 Journalism Hist. 150 (2018).
285 Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 547 (1976).
286 Chief Justice Warren E. Burger served on the Supreme Court from 1969 to 1986. Burger was appointed by President Richard Nixon due to Burger’s conservatism, as well as his literal and strict-constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. Burger often criticized Chief Justice Warren’s decisions. See Charles M. Lamb & Stephen C. Halpern, The Burger Court and Beyond, in The Burger Court: Political and Judicial Profiles (Charles M. Lamb & Stephen C. Halpern eds., 1991).
287 Nebraska Press Ass’n, 427 U.S. at 539–47.
288 Id. at 561.
289 Id.at 547.
290 Id.
291 Id. 547–48.
292 Id. (citing 9 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, November 1785 – June 1786, 239 (Julian P. Boyd ed., 1954)).
293 Id. (quoting Letter From Thomas Jefferson to James Currie (Jan. 28, 1786), in Boyd, supra note 292, at 239) (explaining that Jefferson, writing that letter to James Currie from Paris, Jefferson stated such altercations that harm reputation are not thought of much in America but were “of great impression” in France, and Jefferson wrote that although a public servant even sacrifices reputation and peace of mind, that was “preferable to European bondage”).
294 Nebraska Press Ass’n, 427 U.S. at 549 (citing J. Lofton, Justice and the Press 117–130 (1966). In a footnote, he referenced the Warren Commission’s findings about the coverage of President Kennedy’s assassination. Id. (citing Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy 231 (1964)).
295 Id. at 547 & n. 17.
296 Id. at n. 17. (suggesting readers see, e.g., Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 713–14 (1931); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245–50 (1936); Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263–64 (1941); and Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 384 & n. 5 (1962)).
297 Id. at 557 (citing Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971)).
298 Near, 283 U.S. at 707–8.
299 Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 557; The Virginia Report of 1800 (Jan. 7, 1800).
300 Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 557 (quoting Patterson v. People of State of Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of State of Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).
301 Patterson, 205 U.S. at 462 (citing Respublica v. Oswald, 1 U.S. 319 (Pa. 1788) and Commonwealth v. Blanding, 3 Pick. 304, 313–14 (Mass. 1825)).
302 Respublica, 1 U.S. at 325 (stating that the state declaration of rights said, “That the freedom of the press shall not be restrained” and “printing presses shall be free to every person who understands to examine the proceedings of the legislature, or any part of the government.” The state court determined those precluded licensing the press and gave citizens certain rights to investigate the conduct of public servants: “The true liberty of the press is amply secured by permitting every man to publish his opinions”).
303 Blanding, 3 Pick. at 308.
304 Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 572–73 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring). Justice Brennan, served on the Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990. Brennan was known for being a progressive and outspoken member of the Court. Brennan shared a close friendship with Chief Justice Earl Warren and eventually became a close ally to Justice Thurgood Marshall. Brennan firmly believed the Bill of Rights should be applied at the state and federal levels. See William Joseph Brennan, Jr, in The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary 49–60 (Melvin Urofsky ed., 1994).
305 Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 572–73.
306 Id. at 572.
307 Id. at 573.
308 Id. at n. 5 (directing readers to see, e.g. Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, (1947); Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331 (1946); Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941)).
309 Id. at 588–89. (citing Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 713 (1931) and directing readers to see Patterson v. People of State of Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of State of Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907), and Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 249 (1936)).
310 Id. at 586–87 (directing readers to see In re Oliver, 333 U.S., at 270–271, and Louis D. Brandeis, Other People's Money and How The Bankers Use It 62 (1914) (stating “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman”)).
311 Id.
312 Id. (quoting Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 350 (1966)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
313 Id. at 611 (quoting Bridges, 314 U.S. at 260) (internal quotation marks omitted).
314 See id. and Bridges, 314 U.S. at 260. Madison’s statement is recorded in 1 Annals of Congress 1789–1790, 434.
315 448 U.S. 555, 575 , 577–80, and n. 14 (1980).
316 Id. at 577–81.
317 Id. at 575–80 (holding that the public, and thus the press, had the right to attend criminal trials under the First Amendment).
318 Id. at 577–78 (citing De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 (1937), which stated freedom of assembly is “cognate to” and “equally fundamental” to free speech and press rights).
319 Id. at n. 14 (directing readers to see Bridges, 314 U.S. at 263–65) (internal quotation marks omitted).
320 Id. (directing readers to see, for example, 1 Geo. 1, stat. 2, ch. 5 (1714), and cf. 36 Geo. 3, ch. 8 (1795)).
321 Id. at 265 (quoting Bridges, 314 U.S. at 265). See also Id. at n. 10 (directing readers to compare Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) and Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940) quoting from 6 Writings of James Madison, 1790–1802, 389 (Gaillard Hunt, ed. 1906) that “the common law cannot be admitted as the universal expositor of American terms”).
322 Id. at 579–80 (directing readers to see for example Hamilton, supra note 4).
323 Id. at n. 15 (directing readers to see 1 Annals of Cong. 438–440 (1789) and to see, e.g., 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 651 (5th ed. 1891)).
324 Id. at n. 13.
325 Id. at 579 (citing Hamilton, supra note 4).
326 Hamilton, supra note 4.
327 Id.
328 Id.
329 Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 575, 579–80 (1980) (citing Madison, supra note 4, at 271).
330 Id. (quoting Madison, supra note 4, at 271) (internal quotation marks omitted).
331 Id.; Letter From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 17, 1788), Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-0218.
332 Madison, supra note 252.
333 Id. (stating “I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public; and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases, they will lose even their ordinary efficacy”).
334 Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 589 (Brennan, J., concurring).
335 Id. (directing readers to contrast his assertion with In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 361–62 (1970)).
336 Id. at 590–92 (citing E. Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England 103 (6th ed. 1681); William Blackstone, Commentaries 372–373 (13th ed. 1800); Jeremy Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence 584–85 (1827); Concessions and Agreements of West New Jersey ch. XXIII (1677); Pennsylvania Frame of Government (1682); and Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 425 (1979) (Blackmun, J., concurring & dissenting)).
337 Id. at 585 (directing readers to see Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348, 364 (1980) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 558–59 and 590 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971) (per curiam opinion); and Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 715–16 (1931)).
338 See Delaware Declaration of Rights § XXIII (1776), https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss4.html; Constitution of Maryland Declaration of Rights § XXXVII 1776; Constitution of Georgia § LXI, (1777); and Constitution of South Carolina § XLIII (1778).
339 Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 585 (Brennan, J., concurring) (directing readers to see Brown, 444 U.S. at 364 (Brennan, J., dissenting); Nebraska Press., 427 U.S. at 558–59 and 590 (Brennan, J., concurring); New York Times Co., 403 U.S. at 714; Near, 283 U.S. at 715–16).
340 Id. at 585–98. See also Pickard, supra note 108, at 15–16.
341 See, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 589–90 (Brennan, J., concurring); Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 547–48, 586–87; Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 349–50 (1966).
342 See, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 585 (Brennan, J., concurring) (directing readers to see Brown, 444 U.S. at 364 (Brennan, J., dissenting); Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 558–59 and 590 (Brennan, J., concurring); New York Times Co., 403 U.S. at 714 (per curiam opinion); and Near, 283 U.S. at 715–16); Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 586–89 (Brennan, J., concurring) (citing Near, 283 U.S. at 713 (1931) and directing readers to see Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 249 (1936); Patterson v. People of State of Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of State of Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907); In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270–71 (1948); Brandeis, supra note 310, at 62); Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 350 (citing Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941).
343 See, infra text accompanying notes 345 to 406.
344 See, e.g., Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. 478 U.S 1, 18–19 (1986); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. for the Cty of Riverside, 464 U.S. 501, n. 4 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 31–32 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. of Norfolk Cty, 457 U.S. 596, 604 (1982) (Brennan, J., concurring).
345 Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 604 (Brennan, J., concurring) (citing, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 579–88, n. 4, and n. 16 (1980) (Brennan, J., concurring), and Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966)). The Court held a rule mandating closing a courtroom “during the testimony of a minor victim in a sex-offense trial” violated the First Amendment. Id. at 602.
346 Id. at 604 (citing NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 430 (1963)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
347 Id. (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 579–80, 587–88, n. 4, and n. 16 (Brennan, J., concurring).
348 Id.
349 Id. (citing Mills, 384 U.S. at 218).
350 Mills, 384 U.S. at 219.
351 Id. Earlier in the opinion, Black cited Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), which mentions Thomas Paine’s pamphlets and leaflets and John Milton, Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing (1644). Mills, 384 U.S. at 219.
352 Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 604 (citing Mills, 384 U.S. at 218).
353 Id. (citing Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S 88, 95 (1940), and Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v, Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 589–90 (1980) (Brennan, J., concurring)).
354 Id. (citing Thornhill, 310 U.S at 95, and Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 587–88).
355 Id. at 604–5 (quoting Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 575) (internal quotation marks omitted).
356 Id. (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 579–80 and n. 16, and Mills, 384 U.S. at 219).
357 Id. at 604 (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 579–80 and n. 16).
358 Id. (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 579–80 and n. 16).
359 Id., at 614 (Burger, J., dissenting).
360 464 U.S. 501, 506–7 (1984). The Court considered whether the public and the press had a right to attend voir dire proceedings for a rape and murder trial. The Court explained that the trial judge had “closed an incredible six weeks of voir dire without considering alternatives to closure” and provided more broad closure than was necessary to protect privacy interests of jurors. Id. at 503.
361 Id. (citing W. Holdsworth, 1 A History of English Law 332, 335 (7th ed. 1956)).
362 Id. at 508 (citing 3 Legal Papers of John Adams 18 (1965) (quoting Letter from William Palfrey to John Wilkes (October 1770), in George M. Elsey, John Wilkes and William Palfrey, 34 Col. Soc. Mass. Pub’ns. 411, 423–25 and 49 n. 9 (1943), and Additions to Thomas Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts Bay 32 (Catherine B. Mayo ed., 1949)).
363 Letter from William Palfrey to John Wilkes (October 1770), supra note 362, at 423–36.
364 Id.
365 Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 513. The trial court also denied media requests to access transcripts. Burger stated that the trial court had failed to “articulate findings with the requisite specificity” and “to consider alternatives to closure and to total suppression of the transcript.” Id. at 510–13.
366 Id. at 503–5.
367 Id. at 505 (citing Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. of Norfolk Cty, 457 U.S. 596 (1982); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980); Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979)).
368 Id. at n. 8.
369 Id. at 510.
370 Id. at 517 (Stevens, J., concurring) (quoting id. at n. 8).
371 Id. at 517–18 (citing Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843, 862 (1974) (Powell, J., dissenting); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. of Norfolk Cty, 457 U.S. 596 (1982); and Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966)).
372 Id. at n. 4 (citing Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 30–32 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting)). In Houchins, the Supreme Court voted 4–3 that the First Amendment did not support a distinct “right of access” for journalists to interview prisoners that differs from First Amendment rights for the public. Houchins, 438 U.S at 15.
373 Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at n. 4 (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting)).
374 Id. (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (quoting Letter From James Madison to W. T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822)). See also Silver, supra note 2, at 100 (calling this use of Madison's quote “an excellent example of the value of a statement made by a Framer of the Constitution as a legal authority and guide to judicial decision making even when the quote has little or nothing to do with the constitutional issue being considered”).
375 Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at n. 4. See also Silver, supra note 2, at 102–6 (listing the Justice’s use of that quote in Houchins without providing proper context as one example of a Justice’s use of a Framer’s statement “as a legal authority and guide to judicial decision making even when the quote has little or nothing to do with the constitutional issue being considered”).
376 Letter From James Madison to W. T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-02-02-0480.
377 Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at n. 4 (citing Letter From James Madison to W. T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822)).
378 478 U.S. 1 (1986).
379 Id. at 10.
380 Id. (citing United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 1 (No. 14,692) (CC Va. 1807)).
381 Id. at 13.
382 Id. (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 508 (1984)).
383 Id. at 13 (quoting Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 570 (1980)). See also Emerson, supra note 111, at 7; Blasi, supra note 89, at 535–36.
384 Id. at 9–10 (quoting important precedent from Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 510 that “[The] presumption may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The interest is to be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure was properly entered”).
385 Id. at 22 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (connecting that assertion to Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. 555, 569 (1980), and Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 505, 508, 509, and n. 8).
386 Id.
387 Id. (citing Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 387 (1979)). In Gannett, Stewart focused on English common law practices for open court proceedings in relation to the Sixth Amendment. Gannett, 443 U.S. at 385–86.
388 Id. at 18 (citing Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245–50 (1936)).
389 Id. (citing Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 245–50).
390 Id. (citing Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97, 101–6 (1979); Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 837–45 (1978); Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Ct., 430 U.S. 308, 310–21 (1977) (per curiam); Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 556–80 (1976); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 487–97 (1975)).
391 Id. at 18 (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31 (stating “Our system of self-government assumes the existence of an informed citizenry”)).
392 Id. at 18 (citing Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 31–32 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting)).
393 Id. (quoting Letter from James Madison to W. T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), in 9 Writings of James Madison 103 (Gaillard Hunt, ed., 1910)).
394 Madison, supra note 393, at 103.
395 Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S at 18–19.
396 Id. (quoting from Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (quoting Madison, supra note 393, at 103)).
397 Id. (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 32).
398 Houchins, 438 U.S. at 32 (quoting Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 307 (1965) (Brennan, J., concurring)).
399 381 U.S. at 308.
400 Lamont, 381 U.S. at 308 (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 307 (1964)).
401 New York Times, 376 U.S. at 307 (directing readers to see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949), and De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365 (1937).
402 Id. at 274–75, n. 15 (citing James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, in 4 Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution 575 (1876) and Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams (July 22, 1804), in 4 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson’s 555–56 (H. A. Washington ed., 1861).
403 See, e.g., Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct, 478 U.S 1, 18–19 (1986); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. for the Cty of Riverside, 464 U.S. 501, n. 4 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting)), and Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. of Norfolk Cty, 457 U.S. 596, 604 (1982).
404 See, e.g., Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at, 508 (citing 3 Legal Papers of John Adams 18 (1965); quoting Letter From William Palfrey to John Wilkes (October 1770), in George M. Elsey, John Wilkes and William Palfrey, 34 Col. Soc. Mass. Pub’ns. 411, 423–25 and 49 n. 9 (1941); and quoting Additions to Thomas Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts Bay 32 (Catherine B. Mayo ed., 1949)); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572–80, and n. 15 (1980) (citing Madison, supra note 4, at 271, William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 372–73 (1827), and Jeremy Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence, Specially Applied to English Practice: From the Manuscripts of Jeremy Bentham, Esq. Bencher of Lincoln's Inn. in Five Volumes 524–25 (1827), and directing readers to see, e.g., Hamilton, supra note 4; 1 Annals of Cong. 438–40 (1789); and 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 651 (5th ed. 1891)).
405 See, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 578 and n. 14 (citing De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 (1937)); Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, n. 17 (1976) (suggesting readers see, e.g., Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 713–14 (1931); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245–50 (1936)); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 350 (1966) (quoting Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 265 (1941))(internal quotation marks omitted); and Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, n. 5 (1962) (citing Bridges, 314 U.S. at 263–68).
406 See, e.g., Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 18 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 387 (1979) and Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 30–32 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501, n. 4 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting); and Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. of Norfolk Cty, 457 U.S. 596, 604 (1982) (citing Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218–19 (1966)).
407 Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S. at 1–29; Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 501–20; Globe Newspaper Co., 457 U.S. at 596–611; Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 556–81; Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 539–70; Sheppard, 384 U.S. 333–63; Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962); Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331 (1946); Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941); Patterson v. People of State of Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of State of Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907).
408 See, e.g., Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S. at 18 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Gannett, 443 U.S. at 387, and Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at n. 4 (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32) (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 604 (1982) (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 579–88, n. 4, and n. 16 (Brennan, J., concurring)); Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at n. 14 (1980) (citing Bridges, 314 U.S. at 263–65); Bridges, 314 U.S. at 300 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)).
409 See, e.g., Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S. at 18 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at n. 4 (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32) (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 604 (1982) (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 579–88, n. 4, and n. 16 (Brennan, J., concurring)); Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 585 (Brennan, J., concurring) (directing readers to see, e.g., Brown v. Glines, 444 U. S. 348, 364 (1980) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Nebraska Press Ass’n. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 558–59, 90 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971) (per curiam); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 715–16 (1931)).
410 See, e.g., Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S. at 18 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Gannett, 443 U.S. at 387 and Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at n. 4 (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32) (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 604 (1982) (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 579–88, n. 4, and n. 16 (Brennan, J., concurring)); Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at n. 14 (1980) (citing Bridges, 314 U.S. at 263–65), and Bridges, 314 U.S. at 300 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)).
411 See, e.g., Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 604; Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 579; Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 548–54, 560; Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 349–50; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 95 (1940); Pennekamp, 328 U.S. at n. 5, and (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Bridges, 314 U.S. at 300 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
412 See, e.g., Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S. at 18 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Gannett, 443 U.S. at 387; Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at n. 4 (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting)); and Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 604 (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 579–80, 587–88, n. 4, and n. 16 (Brennan, J., concurring)).
413 Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at n. 4 (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S. at 18 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Gannett, 443 U.S. at 387, and Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 604 (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 587–80 and n. 4 (Brennan, J., concurring); Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 585 (Brennan, J., concurring) (directing readers to see e.g. Brown v. Glines, 444 U. S. 348, 364 (1980) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 558–59, 90 (Brennan, J., concurring); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971) (per curiam); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 715–16 (1931)).
414 Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 604 (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 587–80 and n. 4 (Brennan, J., concurring); Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 585 (Brennan, J., concurring) (directing readers to see e.g. Brown, 444 U. S. at 364 (Brennan, J., dissenting); Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 558–59, 90 (Brennan, J., concurring); New York Times Co., 403 U.S. at 714; Near, 283 U.S. at 715–16).
415 Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 585 (Brennan, J., concurring) (directing readers to see, e.g., Brown, 444 U.S. at 364 (Brennan, J., dissenting) and Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 558–59 and 590 (Brennan, J., concurring)).
416 Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S. at 18 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Gannett, 443 U.S. at 387; Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at n. 4 (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting)), and Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
417 Merryman, supra note 19, at 613, 652 (finding a tendency for California Supreme Court justices to cite recent precedent); Landes et al., supra note 20, at 274 (recognizing potential for federal courts of appeals judges to cite their own opinions).
418 See, e.g., The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al. eds., 20th ed. 2015).
419 Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S at 18 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245–50 (1936)); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. of Norfolk Cty, 457 U.S. 596, 604 (1982) (citing, Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966), and Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S 88, 95 (1940)); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, n. 14 (1980) (citing Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263–65 (1941); Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at n. 17 (suggesting readers see, e.g., Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 713–14 (1931); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245–50 (1936); Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263–64 (1941)); Sheppard, v. Maxwell 384 U.S. 333, 350 (1966) (citing Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941), and Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 384, 388 (1962) (citing Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95, and quoting Bridges, 314 U.S. at 265).
420 Wood, 370 U.S. at 388 (citing Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95).
421 Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95.
422 Id. at 102 (citing Letter From The Continental Congress Sent to the Inhabitants of The Province of Quebec (October 1774)).
423 Levy, supra note 7, at 193.
424 Emerson, supra note 7, at 742–43.
425 Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, n. 10 (1941) (quoting from Madison, supra note 222, at 389).
426 Bunker & Calvert, supra note 47, at 330, 34; Smolla, supra note 48, at 27–39; Silver, supra note 2, at 102.
427 Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, n. 14 (1980) (citing Bridges, 314 U.S. at 263–65; Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at n. 17 (suggesting readers see, e.g., Near, 283 U.S. at 713–14; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245–50 (1936); Bridges, 314 U.S. at 263–65; and Wood, 370 U.S. at 484, n. 5; Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 350 (citing Bridges, 314 U.S. at 265), and Wood, 370 U.S. at 384 (quoting Bridges, 314 U.S. at 265)).
428 205 U.S. 454 (1907).
429 427 U.S. at 557 (quoting Patterson, 205 U.S. at 462).
430 Gibson, supra note 73, at 287.
431 Id. at 327.
432 Id.
433 Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 95 (1940).
434 See, e.g., Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 557 (1976) (quoting Patterson, 205 U.S. at 462).
435 Silver & Kozlowski, supra note 2, at 413–23.
436 See, e.g., Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95 and Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 219 (1966).
437 Meiklejohn, supra note 102 at 32.
438 Silver & Kozlowski, supra note 2, at 31–34.
439 See, e.g., Blasi, supra note 89, at 527–28.
440 See, e.g., Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501, n. 4 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 31–32 (1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 18 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 387 (1979), and Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95; and Mills, 384 U.S. at 219. See also West, supra note 116, at 89; Emerson, supra note 7, at 740–43; Emerson, supra note 111, at 7; Blasi, supra note 89, at 52; Meiklejohn, supra note 102, 30–34; and Blasi, supra note 89, at 535–36.
441 Wm. David Sloan, Go Big!, 9 J. of Historiography in Mass Commc’n 1, 4 (2023).
442 Silver, supra note 2, at 100.
443 See, e.g., Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S. at 18 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 31–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at n. 4 (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Houchins, 438 U.S. at 30–32 (Stevens, J., dissenting)); Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95; Mills, 384 U.S. at 219.
444 See, e.g., Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 95, and Mills, 384 U.S. at 219.
445 Historians often compare information found in multiple sources to ensure they provide accurate interpretation, explanation, and context. See, e.g., Startt & Sloan, supra note 22, at 50–56.
446 See American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians, supra note 11. By July 8, 2022, sixteen organizations had joined the AHA and OAH statement about Supreme Court justices’ inadequate interpretation and citation of history in 2022. Id.
447 See, e.g., Coyle, supra note 284, at 50–52.
448 See, e.g., Editorial, Cameras Build Trust in Chauvin Trial, Star Tribune, April 3, 2021, https://heraldcourier.com/opinion/their-view-cameras-build-trust-in-chauvin-trial/article_2139c29b-bc96-5455-be75-41533ea218bc.html; David Bauder, Challenges for Public Following Impeachment, Weinstein Cases, VOA, Jan. 21, 2020, https://www.voanews.com/press-freedom/challenges-public-following-impeachment-weinstein-cases; and Rochelle Olson, In a Historic Ruling by Minnesota Judge, Cameras Allowed in Courtroom for Officers' Trial in Death of George Floyd, Star Tribune, Nov. 6, 2020, https://www.startribune.com/trial-of-ex-officers-in-george-floyd-killing-will-be-livestreamed/572985182.
449 See, e.g., Coyle, supra note 284, at n. 10 (indicating that editor Sam Ragan gave a speech at a Newark, New Jersey, judicial conference).
450 Hartzog, supra note 34, at 1022; Calvert & Hayes, supra note 34, at 17. Tuchman, supra note 30, at 166.
451 Goffman, supra note 28, at 22, and Chong & Druckman, supra note 28, at 104.
452 See, e.g., Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 264 (1941); and 1 Annals of Congress 1789–1790, 434.