Central South Carolina Chapter, Soc. of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi v. Martin, 77-1636
| Decision Date | 17 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1636,77-1636 |
| Parties | 2 Media L. Rep. 2146 CENTRAL SOUTH CAROLINA CHAPTER, SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS, SIGMA DELTA CHI; Fred P. McNeese, Robert McAlister, Robert Hitt, individually as news reporters and as members, officers, and directors of the Central South Carolina Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi; South Carolina Broadcasters Association; Dr. Richard Uray, individually and as Executive Manager of the South Carolina Broadcasters Association; South Carolina Press Association; The Enterprise, Inc.; Edward M. Sweatt, individually as President of the South Carolina Press Association and as a shareholder and member of the Board of Directors of The Enterprise, Inc.; and Carolyn Kay Harris, Appellants, v. The Honorable J. Robert MARTIN, Jr., United States District Court for the District of South Carolina; Mark W. Buyck, Jr., Esq., United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina; J. Elliott Williams, United States Marshall for the District of South Carolina; and Miller C. Foster, Jr., United States Clerk for the District of South Carolina, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Mitchell Rogovin, George T. Frampton, Jr., Joel I. Klein, David R. Boyd, Washington, D.C., James C. Harrison, Jr., Costa M. Pleicones, Columbia, S.C., Jack C. Landau, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Thomas E. Lydon, Jr., U.S. Atty., Wistar D. Stuckey, Glen E. Craig, Asst. U. S. Attys., Columbia, S.C., Lu Jachnycky, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Before RUSSELL, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
This matter came before the district court on a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the district court's order of May 31, 1976, and on a motion for a stay of that order pending appeal. The challenged order, reproduced below, 1 establishes certain restrictions upon extrajudicial statements and actions of participants in the pending criminal trial of J. Ralph Gasque in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.
The complaint was dismissed by the district court by order dated May 2, 1977, and is now before us on appeal. The district court also denied plaintiffs' motion for a stay pending appeal by order of May 10, 1977. That motion is renewed here pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
We believe that mandamus is the proper remedy to request the relief prayed for here, any inference in our previous opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. See Note: Ungagging the Press, 65 Georgetown Law Review 81, for a collection of some decisions on the subject.
The plaintiffs having substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 21(a), Fed.R.App.P., we think the complaint and supporting submissions should be treated as a petition for mandamus, and we so treat them. As this implies, we think plaintiffs have standing to seek issuance of the writ. Notwithstanding that petitioners desire for access to sources of information may be a broadly based concern, shared by the public at large, if petitioners can show an injury "to (themselves) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision," Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1924, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976), if they have alleged a sufficient "personal stake in the outcome of the controversy," Baker v. Carr,369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), the constitutional requirement of standing is satisfied. We think these tests are met here. We do not regard as wholly speculative the relationship between the district court's order and the plaintiffs' difficulties in seeking to perform their reportorial functions. See Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org.,426 U.S. 26, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976).
Considering the papers before us as a petition for mandamus, and having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, we accordingly hold:
The district court's order of May 2, 1977 dismissing the complaint is in all respects affirmed, on the opinion of the district court, 431 F.Supp. 1182 (D.S.C.1977), as that opinion addresses the merits of the controversy, subject to the following qualifications:
1. To the extent that the district court's order may be construed to prohibit extrajudicial statements concerning the trial on the part of the defendant, Gasque, 2 we express no opinion as to its propriety, since the defendant has not objected to the order in any respect. Any rights of Gasque not waived are reserved.
2. In paragraph 2 of the May 31st order, we regard the prohibition on mingling upon the sidewalks adjacent to the courthouse as overly broad. The district court will lift its prohibition on mingling as it applies to adjacent sidewalks.
3. With respect to the prohibition in paragraph 3 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Cianfrani
... ... with state-funded graduate and professional schools in order to obtain the admission of ... Accord, Central South Carolina Chapter, Society of Professional ournalists, Sigma Delta Chi v. Martin, 556 F.2d 706, 707-08 (4th ... Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi v. Martin, 556 F.2d 706 (4th ... ...
-
U.S. v. Hubbard
... ... in the district court here and in the Central District of California the Church has asserted ... 1960) ... 57 Cent. S.C. Chapter v. Martin, 556 F.2d 706 (4th Cir. 1977), cert ... married persons with whom they had professional relationship); Comm'r v. Mun. Court, 100 ... ...
-
Hirschkop v. Snead, 76-2016
... ... Newspapers Professional Association, Plaintiff-Intervenors, ... Hon ... 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976); Central South Carolina Chapter, Society of Professional ournalists v. Martin, 556 F.2d 706 (4th Cir. 1977); In re: Oliver, 452 ... ...
-
United States v. Franklin, F Cr 82-16.
...not all one way in accord with Sherman. See, Central South Carolina Chapter, etc. v. Martin, 431 F.Supp. 1182 (D.S.C.1977), aff'd, 556 F.2d 706 (4th Cir. 1977). Compare, CBS v. Young, 522 F.2d 234 (6th Cir. It is also basic to note that we are here dealing with the First Amendment press rig......
-
Gagging the Press Through Participant and Closure Orders: the Aftermath of Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart
...States D.C. of S.C., 551 F.2d 559 (4th Cir. 1977); Central S.C. Chapter of Prof. Journ. v. Martin, 431 F. Supp. 1182 (D.S.C.), aff'd, 556 F.2d 706 (4th Cir. 1977), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 1102 (1978). See also Gannett Pacific Corp. v. Richardson,____Haw_____,____, 580 P.2d 49, 58 (1978) ("to......