Court Opinion

ID: 9770276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:57:01.047008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:20.689463
License: Public Domain

WALKER, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I suppose this response is best captioned “Dissent,” for I do indeed disagree with a conditional granting of mandamus.
I view this case as having far greater, deeper significance than that acknowledged by the majority or by this dissent, for it truly probes that endless circuity of word and thought which perhaps defies meaningful or substantive address. I view the present subject matter as a constitutional law professor’s dream of infinite hypothetical, prefaced by, “suppose that,” “what if,” and “assuming so and so.”
To me the question is a simple one: “During the litigation process does a tribunal have the power to control the judicial process where that control may encumber, repress, restrain or in any way hinder those expected and protected freedoms provided through the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?”
In our case, relator desires to advertise certain matters through the media. Actually, relator is seeking discovery through the use of advertising. What’s wrong with that? Basically, and at first glance, nothing is wrong with that, for this is every American’s right, i.e., to freely speak, to have free press, to freely assemble and to freely petition for redress. These freedoms are bom out of a concept which free people know as Democracy.
Each of these First Amendment rights enumerated are not just rights, they are precious rights which many thousands of Americans have willingly died to guarantee their perpetual survival. These precious rights are direct offspring of a basic concept *146we know as Democracy. In order to preserve the basic concept there must exist a proper balance and perspective between the offspring and their parent, otherwise the concept is hurled headlong into chaotic turmoil, for the offspring, having reached full and uncontrolled maturity now, figuratively, turn to consume the womb.
Maintaining balance is, or else should be, the never ending quest of our system of government. Obviously, for the most part, the balancing is left to that branch of government which we recognize as the Judicial Branch. The ease at hand, as I see it, requires us to seek a balancing of Mr. Low’s right of free speech to Judge King’s authority to control the litigation before him. Mr. Low chose the judicial process to vent his contentions against Gulf States Utilities Company. During the judicial process, Mr. Low also chooses to exercise the fullness of his rights to free speech through the media. Judge King attempted to balance Mr. Low’s rights with the judicial process hopefully in the interest of justice to all and for all. Unfortunately, this balancing places Mr. Low’s First Amendment right in a squeeze and something has to give.
The majority feels that the Court must yield and that Mr. Low may go hence without restraint. The majority relies upon Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.1992), as the authority. Davenport concerned the question of whether a trial court could enter a protective “gag order” to prevent discussion of a case outside the courtroom. The legal significance between a “gag order” and running ads in a newspaper regarding pending litigation are no doubt distinguishably similar.
Hypothetically, suppose that on the morning of jury selection, relator appears at the entrance of the courthouse carrying a sign which reads, “Gulf States Utilities Company has committed grievous acts against Wyley Low.” Can Judge King restrain such conduct or is the court left only to a voir dire examination of each juror or possibly a venue transfer?
Since Davenport seems to be our compelling guidance holding that prior restraint is presumptively unconstitutional, I must adhere, although part (1) of the test is impossible to prove. Id., 834 S.W.2d at 10.
Rather than conditionally granting mandamus, I would abate the present proceedings and send the matter back to Judge King for a Davenport hearing.
Respectively submitted.