Document: 435 U.S. 829 98 S.Ct. 1535 56 L.Ed.2d 1 LANDMARK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Appellant,v.Commonwealth of VIRGINIA. No. 76-1450. Argued Jan. 11, 1978. Decided May 1, Syllabus A Virginia statute makes it a crime to divulge information regarding proceedings before state judicial review commission that is authorized hear complaints about judges' disability or misconduct. For printing in its newspaper an article accurately reporting on pending inquiry by the and identifying judge whose conduct was being investigated, appellant publisher convicted violating statute. Rejecting appellant's contention violated First Amendment as made applicable States Fourteenth, Supreme Court affirmed. Held: The does not permit criminal punishment third persons who are strangers such for divulging publishing truthful confidential commission. Pp. 837-845. (a) major purpose protect free discussion governmental affairs, which includes operations courts conduct, published served interests public scrutiny matters. 838-839. (b) question whether confidentiality serves legitimate interests, but those sufficient justify encroaching guarantees imposition sanctions entails. Injury reputation judges institutional "repressing speech would otherwise be free." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 254, 272-273, 84 710, 721-722, 11 686. 839-842. (c) mere fact legislature found clear present danger orderly administration justice justifying enactment challenged did preclude necessity proof existed. This has consistently rejected argument out-of-court comments cases grand jury investigations constituted justice. See Bridges California, 314 252, 62 190, 86 L.Ed. 192; Pennekamp Florida, 328 331, 66 1029, 90 1295; Craig Harney, 331 367, 67 1249, 91 1546; Wood Georgia, 370 375, 82 1364, 8 569. If clear-and-present-danger test could satisfied cases, fortiori here. 842-845. (d) Much risk can eliminated through careful internal procedures proceedings. P. 845. 217 Va. 699, 233 S.E.2d 120, reversed remanded. Floyd Abrams, City, appellant. James E. Kulp, Richmond, Va., appellee. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. presented this appeal Commonwealth may subject persons, including newspapers, misconduct, when declared State Constitution statutes.1 2 * On October 4, 1975, Virginian Pilot, Landmark newspaper, reported Judicial Inquiry Review Commission identified investigated. "[n]o formal complaint been filed against [the judge], indicating either five-man panel insufficient cause action case still under review." App. 47a. month later, November 5, indicted Va.Code § 2.1-37.13 (1973) "unlawfully divulg[ing] identification Judge record, said investigation hearing" Commission. 3 trial commenced December 16, after court had denied Landmark's motion quash dismiss indictment grounds statutory provision terms apply so applied with Fourteenth Amendments. essential facts were stipulated, revealed at time concerning investigation.2 only witness trial, Joseph W. Dunn, Jr., Managing Editor testified he decided print because felt matter importance should brought attention Pilot's readers. Dunn acknowledged aware misdemeanor anyone participating i proceedings, understand reports He further no reporter, employee, representative subpoenaed appeared connection described 4 article. tried without jury, guilty fined $500 plus costs prosecution. affirmed conviction, one dissent. That characterized involving "a confrontation between guaranty freedom press imposes breach Commission." At outset claim participants proceeding initial disclosure information. "Clearly, actions statute] rendered liable prescribed . ." 703, 123. 5 Turning then constitutional question, noted first impression broad significance large number other addition have comparable statutes requiring respect commissions. emphasized issue prior restraint instead involved sanction subsequent publication. Accordingly, concluded "clear test" appropriate benchmark. It three functions requirement proceedings: protection judge's from adverse publicity might flow frivolous complaints, maintenance confidence system preventing premature determined charge well founded, complainants witnesses possible recrimination prohibiting until validity ascertained. concluded: 6 "Considering these matters, we believe safely, need hard in-court evidence, that, absent confidentiality, function properly discharge effectively intended purpose. Thus, indispensable suppression posed Commission's sensitive proceedings—the imminent impairment effectiveness accompanying immediate threat justice." Id., 712, S.E.2d, 129. 7 In dissent, Poff took position Amendment. We probable jurisdiction, 431 964, 97 2919, 53 1059 now reverse.3 II appears 47 States, District Columbia, Puerto Rico, established constitution, statute, rule, some type disciplinary procedures.4 All jurisdictions, apparent exception provide although most guarantee extends point equivalent body.5 Cf. ABA Project Standards Criminal Justice, Function Trial 9.1 (App.Draft 1972). 9 substantial uniformity existing plans suggests perceived tending insure ultimate First, thought encourage filing willing participation relevant providing retaliation recrimination.6 Second, least meritorious separated protects injury result publication unexamined unwarranted complaints. And finally, argued, judiciary institution maintained avoiding announcement groundless claims misconduct since assumed will officers rarely satisfy all contending litigants. generally Braithwaite, Who Judges Judges? 161-162 (1971); Buckley, Qualifications: An Attempt Deal Misconduct, U.San Fran.L.Rev. 244, 255-256 (1969). 10 advancing general facilitate work commissions several practical respects. When removal retirement justified charges, more likely resign voluntarily retire if accompany thereby avoided.7 Of course, cha ges become early stage investigation, little lost—at perspective—by commencement common situation, where alleged magnitude warrant even censure, allows minor appropriately called his notice. supra, 162-163. Acceptance collective judgment promotes mode scrutinizing integrity, however, marks beginning inquiry. Indeed, challenge focuses attack determination Legislature, construed Court, "divulging" "publishing" parties, themselves criminally punishable. Unlike generalized mandate characteristic plans; indeed Hawaii appear disclosure.8 III 12 narrow limited presented, then, permits inquiry, news media, Commission.9 here concerned applicability secures illegal means thereafter divulges it. do us any State's power keep punish mandate.10 Nebraska Press Assn. Stuart, 427 539, 564, 96 2791, 2805, 49 683 (1976); id., 601 n.27, S.Ct., 2823 n.27 (Brennan, J., concurring judgment); 393-394, 569 (1962). Nor argue constitutionally compelled right access Saxbe Washington Post Co., 417 843, 94 2811, 41 514 (1974); Pell Procunier, 817, 2800, 495 (1974). Finally, held, dispute, constitute attempt censor media. 13 urges dispositive answer officials their duties always insulated points solicitude accorded untruthful subjects, see, e. g., 686 (1964), extension dissemination commercial information, Board Pharmacy Citizens Consumer Council, 425 748, 1817, 48 346 Linmark Associates, Inc. Township Willingboro, 85, 1614, 52 155 (1977), support contention. find unnecessary adopt categorical approach resolve us. conclude seeks lies near core Amendment, Commonwealth's advanced actual potential encroachments follow therefrom. See, Buckley Valeo, 424 64-65, 612, 656, 46 659 (1976). A. 14 Mills Alabama, 384 214, 218, 1434, 1437, 16 484 (1966), observed: "Whatever differences exist interpretations there practically universal agreement affairs."11 Although ignore clamor media editorials reaching decisions tradition respond commentary, law gives "[j]udges institutions greater immunity criticism than institutions." 289, 206, 192 (1941) (Frankfurter, dissenting). matters utmost concern. 15 "A responsible regarded handmaiden effective Its regard documented impressive record service over centuries. simply publish trials guards miscarriage subjecting police, prosecutors, processes extensive criticism." Sheppard Maxwell, 333, 350, 1507, 1515, 600 (1966). Cox Broadcasting Corp. Cohn, 420 469, 492, 95 S.Ct 1044 43 (1975). 17 operation Commission, less itself, interest, necessarily engaging provided accurate factual legislatively doing clearly affairs adopted protect. U.S., 269-270, 720. B 18 concedes "[w]ithout report criticize conduct," Brief Appellee 17, argues extend "which Constitutional confidential." Ibid. Our recent decision relied upon interpretation scope guarantees. As read Cox, confronting holding civil television station privacy broadcast already domain. "At very least, Amendments allow exposing liability truthfully released official records." 496, 1047. broader question—whether withheld domain similarly privileged—was reached explicitly reserved Cox. 497 1047 n.27. address implications here, circumstances protected 19 also what perceives pernicious effects argument. contends interest unfounded allegations defames honest demean functioning itself claimed impeded complainant, witnesses, investigation. minimize harmful consequences, according Commonwealth, ensuring empty promise. 20 purposes interests. encroachment entails nonparticipants Landmark. offered assertion conjecture objectives scheme seriously undermined. While dispositive, note 40 having similar necessary enforce use nonparticipants.12 21 Moreover, neither protecting judges, nor maintaining integrity assumption enhance confidentiality. Admittedly, good repute like officials. firmly established, reason "for repressing 722. Garrison Louisiana, 379 64, 67, 85 209, 212, 125 (1964). remaining sought protected, courts, entitled weight scales. supra. Black observed 270-271, 197: 22 "The won shielding wrongly appraises character American opinion. [A]n enforced silence, however limited, solely name preserving dignity bench, probably engender resentment, suspicion, contempt much respect." 23 Frankfurter, dissent Bridges, agreed cannot punished "to mystical entity individuals annointed priests set apart community spared democracy servants exposed." 291-292, 208. 24 disregarding well-established principles. them controlling and, dispositive. IV 25 rejecting claim. relevance standard here; moreover accept mechanical application led conclusion. Holmes' never express technical legal doctrine convey formula adjudicating cases." 353, 1040, 1295 (1946) concurring). Properly applied, requires make own into imminence particular utterance balance evil, likelihood, unfettered expression. possibility measures serve weighed. 26 argued "before expression, must prove 'actual facts' existence 706, 125. devoid "actual facts," went hold required requisite finding "that created divulgence Commis ion." 708, 126. legislative declaration coupled stipulated disputed sanctions. 27 Deference limit rights stake. 335, 1031, 1295, Reed 28 "compelled examine [itself] statements they see carry impartiality order principles Due Process Clause protect." 29 Brandeis pointed concurrence Whitney 274 357, 378-379, 641, 649, 71 1095 (1927): 30 "[A declaration] enquiry whether, circumstances, conditions existed Federal Constitution. Whenever fundamental assembly invaded, remain open defendant actually danger; danger, any, imminent; evil apprehended stringent restriction interposed legislature." 31 inquires declare reasons impelling commands analysis specific charged falls within reach legislation consonant Were otherwise, definition check nullified. 32 thus incumbent go behind "the utteranc[e] [its] determine extent substantive unfair consequence, degree likelihood [subsequent] punishment." 271, 198. precedents leave doubt proper outcome 33 series raising used investigations, commentary supra; Penne- kamp 1546 (1947); What emerges "working principle extremely serious high utterances punished," 263, 194, "solidity evidence," 347, 1038 showing imminence. remote probable; immediately imperil." 376, 1255. 34 efforts distinguish unpersuasive. publications Pennekamp, Craig, was, thing, direct extreme seem met true justice, disclosure, present" our view far short requirement. proceedings.13 2805; judgment). event, "[t]he 'danger' evidenced precisely types activity envisioned Founders presenting ratification." 388, 1372. 35 reversed, remanded inconsistent opinion.14 36 Reversed 37 BRENNAN POWELL part consideration case. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT 38 total jurisdictions mechanism inquiring conduct. With impose constitutional, statutory, administrative provisions. provisions listed below: 39 Alabama: Const. Amdt. 328, 6.17 Rule Rules Procedure Commission; Alaska: Stat.Ann. 22.30.060 Qualifications; Arizona: Const., Art. 6.1, Arkansas: §§ 22-145(f) 22-1004(b) (Supp. 1977); California: 6, 18(f), 902 Title (Miscellaneous Rules) Div. I (Rules Censure, Removal, Retirement Private Admonishment Judges); Colorado: 23(3)(d), Connecticut: Gen.Stat. 51c, 51d 1977 Pub.Act 77-494; Delaware: 37, 10(d) Judiciary; Columbia: Code 11-1528 (1973), 1.4(b) Regulations Disabilities Tenure; Florida: 12(d), Qualifications Georgia: 13, ¶ 3, Hawaii: Rev.Stat. 610-3(a), 610-12(b) (1976), Practice Qualification; Idaho: 1-2103 1977), Council; Illinois: 15(c), Board; Indiana: 7, 33-2.1-5-3 Iowa: 605.28 (1977); Kansas: 20-175 (1974), 607 Relating Conduct; Kentucky: 4.130 Court; Louisiana: 25(C), Judiciary Maryland: 4B(a), 1227 e, r, Procedure; Massachusetts: Committe Responsibility; Michigan: 30(2), 932.22 Administrative Rules; Minnesota: Stat. 490.16(5) Standards; Missouri: 12.23 Retirement, Removal Discipline; Montana: Rev.Codes Ann. 93-723 Nebraska: 30(3), 24.726 (1975), Nevada: 21(3), Revised Interim Procedural Hampshire: Rev.Stat.Ann. 490:4 1975), Jersey: 2:15-11(e) Governing Appellate Division Superior Mexico: 32, York: Jud.Law 44 (McKinney Supp. North Carolina: 7A-377(a) Dakota: Cent.Code 27-23-03(5) Commissions Ohio: 5(21) Practice; Oklahoma: Stat., Tit. 20, 1658 1976), 5(C) Council Complaints; Oregon: 1.420(2), 1.440 Fitness; Pennsylvania: 18(h), Rhode Island: Tenure South 34, Items 33, 9, Comp.Laws 16-1A-4 Tennessee: 17-811(2), 17-813(2) Texas: 1-a(10), Judges; Utah: 78-7-30(3) Vermont: Disciplinary Control; Virginia: 10, West Handling Complaints Against Justices, Judges, Magistrates; Wisconsin: Item Ethics, 3(4) Wyoming: Supervisory STEWART, judgment. enacted making offense "any person" agree violates 42 There hardly higher quality judiciary. Virginia's derivative seems equally clear. Only determined, upright unjustified harm same full fearless airing every nothing prevent punishing violate re Sawyer, 360 622, 646, 79 1376, 1388, 1473 (opinion result). But extended do. anything, government take decide publish. Though deny theft, prohibit o once hands press, unless secrecy manifestly overwhelming.* ground concur Article provides part: General Assembly shall create consisting members judiciary, bar, vested investigate charges basis retirement, judge. hearings subpoena documents. Proceedings implements "All papers two preceding sections (§§ 2.1-37.11, 2.1-37.12), testimony evidence transcript thereof divulged person except lose character. "Any violation section misdemeanor." effect: pursuant 2.1-37.13, (1950), divulged, punishable law." Upon Virginia, records (1973). Eight days United Eastern issued temporary injunction restraining prosecution Richmond WXEX prosecuted. Nationwide Communications, Backus, 77-0139-R (Mar. 15, 1977). Thereafter, Newspapers, Inc., 2.1-37.13. April 1977, publisher's enjoin conviction violations resul ed. conclusion case, enjoined Appellant secured allowing Associated story current newspapers Campbell, 77-404-N (ED June expired 1977. Several bills Congress somewhat federal judges. H.R. 1850, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 9042, S. 1423, (1977). provisions, statutes, rules appendix Confidentiality integral aspect proposals currently Congress. 382; 381. None According appellee, plan, complainant original record. identity heard presumably experience California year retired resigned voluntarily, rather confront made. important thing [these cases] closed furor, done caused himself recognize situation exists avail retirement." Hearings 1110 Subcommittee Improvements Machinery Senate Committee Judiciary, 94th 2d Sess., 120 (1976) (testimony Jack Frankel, Executive Officer Qualifications). 610-3(b) member individual certification felony fine $5000 imprisonment five years, both." below unclear proscription ap lied parties participated Poff, language encompass contrary construction save invalidity, "it construe given highest State." O'Brien Skinner, 414 524, 531, 740, 744, 702 categories "participants" come mind: staff employees, putative employees Commonwealth. No interdependence frequently acknowledged. presupposes independent may, necessary, vindicated. potent assuring independence press." 355, 1041, contempt. 4.130(2) Kentucky 3(g) Massachusetts Responsibility. Other require oath secrecy, treated 25(c) Florida S(2) Minnesota (witnesses only); 7(c) Mexico 1(c) Pennsylvania only). relating contained n.12, attacks vagueness overbreadth grounds. resolution issues. National defense obvious justification restrictions Even distinctions drawn restraints penalties. 403 713, 733-737, 2140, 2151-2153, 822 (White, concurring); Near ex rel. Olson, 283 697, 716, 51 625, 631, 75 1357.

Category: 2