Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer

• Decision Date: 04 August 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74-1305,74-1305
• Citation: 522 F.2d 242
• Parties: 1 Media L. Rep. 1094 CHICAGO COUNCIL OF LAWYERS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William J. BAUER et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Terence MacCarthy et al., Intervenors-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 242

522 F.2d 242

1 Media L. Rep. 1094

CHICAGO COUNCIL OF LAWYERS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William J. BAUER et al., Defendants-Appellees and Terence MacCarthy et al., Intervenors-Appellees.

No. 74-1305.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued Nov. 18, 1974.

Decided Aug. 4, 1975.

Milton I. Shadur, Joseph R. Lundy, Alexander Polikoff, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.

George D. Crowley, Louis G. Davidson, Chicago, Ill., for amicus.

James R. Thompson, U.S. Atty., Gary L. Starkman and Jeffrey Cole, Asst. U.S. Attys., Terence F. MacCarthy, Chicago, Ill., for appellees.

Before CASTLE, Senior Circuit Judge, SWYGERT, Circuit Judge, and WYZANSKI, Senior District Judge. ¹

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge.

The question posed by this appeal is whether the "no-comment" rules of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois deprive lawyers of their free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The plaintiffs, Chicago Council of Lawyers and seven members of the Chicago bar, brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of themselves and all lawyers who practice before the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. They sought a determination that Rule 1.07 of the District Court's Local Criminal Rules (Appendix A) and Disciplinary Rule 7-107 of the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility (Appendix B) (which the District Court assumed Arguendo was incorporated within Local General Rule 8 ² are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The named defendants are the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, the Marshal for the District Court, and the Clerk of the District Court, all of whom are alleged to participate in the enforcement of these rules. ³ The intervening defendants are attorneys who regularly engage in the representation of defendants in criminal cases in the Northern District of Illinois. Motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action were filed on behalf of the defendants and granted by the district judges comprising the Executive Committee of the District Court. The reasons given for the judges' action were incorporated in a "Memorandum and Order" which appears at 371 F.Supp. 689 (N.D.Ill.1974).

I

The plaintiffs contend that the "no-comment" rules unconstitutionally restrict lawyers' rights to comment publicly on pending litigation and to hear and read such public comment by other lawyers because the rules are not restricted to situations which present a "clear and present danger of a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice." They argue that lawyers are entitled to full First Amendment rights and that the "reasonable likelihood of interference with a fair trial" standard employed by these rules is unconstitutional. Collaterally, the plaintiffs contend that many of the rules are constitutionally infirm because they are either vague or overbroad or both. Before discussing the separate rules, some general comments are in order.

Plaintiffs say that they do not ask constitutional protection for comment on litigation that "In fact affects or poses a clear and present danger to the administration of justice" or "In fact constitutes a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice." They acknowledge the right of courts to protect their trials and to take all reasonable means to ensure a fair trial to every litigant. The plaintiffs argue that fair trials are not in issue because they "do not seek to protect lawyers' comments that actually impair the ability of the trial court to afford fair trials." Finally, they maintain that there is no need to "balance" the First Amendment rights of lawyers against litigants' due process rights to fair trials since these two rights do not compete.

We are not as sanguine as plaintiffs that there is no competition or conflict between the right of lawyers to free speech and the right of litigants to fair trials. If by noncompetition they mean that from an ideal or abstract view the two rights can and should coexist without disharmony, we might agree; however, pragmatically, in everyday situations there are bound to be conflicts. Consequently, when irreconcilable conflicts do arise, the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to criminal defendants and to all persons by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, must take precedence over the right to make comments about pending litigation by lawyers who are associated with that litigation if such comments are apt to seriously threaten the integrity of the judicial process. We do not understand the plaintiffs to take a contrary position. That courts have the duty to ensure fair trials "the most fundamental of all freedoms" ⁴ is beyond question. The Supreme Court made this clear in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966). Moreover, the Court in that case settled the corollary proposition that courts have the power to "take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences." 384 U.S. at 363, 86 S.Ct. at 1522.

The statement of these general propositions leads us a step further toward a solution of the issue raised in this appeal. Since the right of free speech must give way to the right of a fair trial when there is an irreconcilable conflict, the next inquiry relates to the limits of the circumscription on comment that lawyers can be required to observe consistent with their rights under the First Amendment.

A preliminary issue that should be addressed is whether we are to evaluate such rules as "prior restraints." A restriction deemed a prior restraint may not be per se unconstitutional, but it does come before us "with a 'heavy presumption' against its constitutional validity." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419, 91 S.Ct. 1575, 1578, 29 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). It is important to note, however, Mr. Justice Frankfurter's admonition that the phrase "prior restraint" not be deemed a "self-wielding sword" nor a "talismanic test." Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 441, 77 S.Ct. 1325, 1 L.Ed.2d 1469 (1957). Our case presents a perfect example of a situation in which the meaning behind the phrase should be examined. Admittedly, the rules in question have some elements similar to that which we have traditionally termed "prior restraints." A violation of the rules can be punished by the contempt power just like a failure to obey an injunction. The full criminal procedural safeguards, including the right to trial by jury, would not necessarily be available. Punishment by contempt is an important attribute of a "prior restraint" that distinguishes it from a criminal statute that forbids a certain type of expression.

But in an equally important aspect these rules differ from a "prior restraint." Normally a "prior restraint" constitutes a predetermined judicial prohibition restraining specified expression and it cannot be violated even though the judicial action is unconstitutional if opportunities for appeal existed and were ignored. See Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1967). The validity of court rules, however, can be challenged by one prosecuted for violating them since we have held that there is a fundamental distinction in this regard between actions taken by the court in its legislative role and those taken in its adjudicative role. In re Oliver, 452 F.2d 111 (7th Cir. 1971).

The conclusion we reach from this analysis is that we cannot label the no-comment rules as "prior restraints" given the connotations of that term, but we do recognize that these rules have some of the inherent features of "prior restraints" which have caused the judiciary to review them with particular care. Thus, while we do not begin our examination with a "heavy presumption" against validity, we are aware of the fact that these court rules must endure even closer scrutiny than a legislative restriction.

This scrutiny centers on certain constitutional standards relating to clearness, precision, and narrowness. Rules which deny a lawyer his First Amendment rights in the interest of a fair trial must be neither vague nor overbroad. As the Supreme Court said in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 109, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972):

(W)here a vague statute "abut(s) upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms," it "operates to inhibit the exercise of (those) freedoms." Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to " 'steer far wider of the unlawful zone' . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked." (footnotes omitted).

In Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488, 81 S.Ct. 247, 252, 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960), the Supreme Court discussed the matter of overbreadth:

In a series of decisions this Court has held that, even though the governmental purpose be legitimate and substantial, that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved. The breadth of legislative abridgement must be viewed in the light of less drastic means for achieving the same basic purpose. (footnotes omitted).

We should keep in mind that extrajudicial comments which might impair the "orderly and fair administration of justice in a pending case," Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263, 62 S.Ct. 190, 194, 86 L.Ed. 192 (1941), must be measured as are other utterances that are proscribed by reason of a countercompelling governmental interest. "(T)he limitation of First Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1811, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974).

Given these constitutional standards for guidance, we must ask: What test should apply to extrajudicial comments of...