Opinion ID: 900632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Availability of Writ

Text: [¶ 4.] This Court has both constitutional and statutory authority to issue writs of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of any tribunal when such proceedings are without jurisdiction or in excess of the power of authority conferred by law upon the tribunal. S.D. Const. art. V, § 5, SDCL 21-30-1, 21-30-2; Cummings v. Mickelson, 495 N.W.2d 493, 495 (S.D. 1993). Writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and is available only when there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. SDCL 21-30-2. The applicant must be one who is beneficially interested. SDCL 21-30-3. [¶ 5.] In applying for a peremptory writ of prohibition, Media claimed Judge Miller's participant gag order violated its First Amendment rights and that the court acted in excess of its authority. Media was not in a position to seek a remedy by direct appeal because it is neither a party to the underlying action nor specifically enjoined by the order from discussing the case. However, Media's First Amendment rights are affected by the gag order, as is noted below, and it would be without a remedy should we find prohibition could not be invoked. There being no plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to it in the ordinary course of law, and concluding Media has a beneficial interest in the outcome, we deem it appropriate to review the trial court's gag order in this prohibition action.