Opinion ID: 2548547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Prior Restraint Necessary; Harm Great and Certain

Text: Recipients do not dispute the constitutionality of excluding the public and press from the in camera hearings, nor do they challenge the requirement that the parties, witnesses, and court personnel must maintain the secrecy of the proceedings. [7] Rather, the Recipients argue in this case that at the moment the transcript arrived at their computers, they lawfully acquired the information and were entitled to publish it. In conducting our analysis of whether the prior restraint is necessary to protect against an evil that is great and certain, would result from the reportage, and cannot be mitigated by less intrusive measures, we recognize that the Supreme Court has hypothesized that a valid restraint might occur in the intersection of First Amendment and privacy rights, but has not yet decided a case approving one.