civil proceeding. Nebraska Press,a a splintered decision with five separateopinions, hasbeenappropriately criticized for failingto providea comprehensive separate opinions, has been appropriately criticized for failing to provide a comprehensive SeeStephen offreeexpression. guarantee R.Bamett,ThePuzzleofPriorRestraint, 29Stan.L. guarantee of free expression. See Stephen R. Barnett, The Puzzle of Prior Restraint, 29 Stan. L. Rev.539,541 (1977);BennoC. Schmidt, An Expansionof NebraskaPressAssociation: Rev. 539, 541 (1977); Benno C. Schmidt, Jr., Nebraska Press Association: An Expansion of FreedomandContraction of 29Stan.L.Rev.431,461(1977)." Freedom and Contraction of Theory, 29 Stan. L. Rev. 431, 461 (1977)." In deference to Texas'categorical prohibition of speech,the Court uponrestrictions In deference to Texas' categorical prohibition upon restrictions of speech, the Court statesthat"[n]either Nebraska Pressnoranyother oftheUnitedStatesSupreme further states that "[n]either Nebraska Press nor any other ruling of the United States Supreme has considered suchan order.Indeed,thereis a confusing splitof federal Court has specifically considered such an order. Indeed, there is a confusing split of federal authorityon thismatter.SeeIn re DowJones,842F.2d603,608-10(2d.Cir.),cert. sub authority on this matter. See In re Dow Jones, 842 F.2d 603, 608-10 (2d. Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom.DowJones&Co.,Inc.v.Simon, 488US.946,102 Ed.2d365,109S.Ct.377(1988) nom. Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Simon, 488 U.S. 946, 102 L. Ed. 2d 365, 109 S. Ct. 377 (1988) (gagordersontrialparticipants are subjectto a lesserdegreeof scrutinythanarepriorrestraints); (gag orders on trial participants are subject to a lesser degree of scrutiny than are prior restraints); In re onNebraska 726F.2d1007,1010(4thCir.1984)(relying Pressto upholda gag In re Russell, 726 F.2d 1007, 1010 (4th Cir. 1984) (relying on Nebraska Press to uphold a gag orderon trialparticipants); butseeJournalPublishing Co.v. Mechem, 801F.2d1233,1236 order on trial participants); but see Journal Publishing Co. v. Mechem, 801 F.2d 1233, 1236 (10thCir.986)(gagorderson trialparticipants priorrestraint)." Theendresulthas (10th Cir. 986) (gag orders on trial participants constitute prior restraint)." The end result has beena lackofuniformity inlowerCourtswiththeU.S.Supreme striking downeverygag been a lack of uniformity in lower Courts with the U.S. Supreme Court striking down every gag orderthatwasremotely deemed apriorrestraint uponspeech. order that was remotely deemed a prior restraint upon speech.
Silverado Appx. 0562 No. 1-15-567-CV 1651 58. 58.T SupremeCourt exasSupreme Texas Courtrruled uledthatthe"gagorder" that the "gag order" w undoubtedlyin asundoubtedly was in violation violation ooff Article
One,Section Eight of the Texas Constitution.ItItfailed One, Section EightoftheTexasConstitution. toidentify failedto anymiscommunication identifyany miscommunicationthat that
thejury the jury may have perceived, lacked may haveperceived, lacked specificproofof proof ofimminent imminent harmto the litigation,and tothelitigation, and
offered o explanation offered nno explanationof of whythealleged why the alleged harm could not be could not sufficiently be sufficiently addressed addressedby by remedial remedialaaction. Gagorders ction.Gag are almost ordersare almost withoutexceptionunconstitutional in civil without exception unconstitutionalin civil
cases unlessthe cases matter is unless the matter sealedin is sealed accordancewithstrictconstitutional in accordance with strict constitutionalmandates mandatesof of Article Article II Section Section 13 andTexas 13 and Ruleof Texas Rule CivilProcedure of Civil 76a. Sealing hhas Procedure 76a.Sealing ashistorically historically beenlimited been limited to sensitive to sensitive involving casesinvolving cases juveniles juvenilesandadoptions. and adoptions.
59.Evenin the criminal 59. Even inthe context, notall criminalcontext,not allhighprofile casesjustifythe high profilecases justify theimposition impositionofofaa"gag "gag order."Whilethe Court of Appealsgranted order." While the 14th Courtof Appeals grantedaa"gagorder"in "gag