EDITORIAL: State high court stops judge’s assault on First Amendment
A Las Vegas judge’s effort to run her courtroom in defiance of the First Amendment ended predictably this week. Let’s hope it leaves a lasting impression.
On Wednesday, the Nevada Supreme Court gave District Court Judge Jessica Peterson a remedial refresher on press freedoms and open trials. The judge had ejected three Review-Journal employees from her courtroom last week after they refused to accede to her efforts to dictate how the newspaper covered the sexual assault trial of Nathan Chasing Horse, who appeared in the movie “Dances with Wolves.”
The judge had previously attempted to impose various restrictions on press coverage of the proceedings, including a demand that news outlets “not disclose any personal information” without permission of the victims, witnesses or jurors. She justified potential reporting limitations as the price for the “privilege of being in the courtroom.”
Judge Peterson’s edicts ran counter to the First and Sixth amendments, the latter guaranteeing the accused a “speedy and public trial.” They were also an affront to the vital concept of an open judiciary as a bedrock principle of a free society and a necessity for ensuring justice and accountability.
On Tuesday, lawyers for the Review-Journal went to court to block Judge Peterson’s efforts. It took a three-judge panel of the state Supreme Court only a day to intervene.
“Petitioners argue that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in several respects, including by issuing an unconstitutional restraint and violating its right of access to the court,” the decision noted. “We agree.” The justices also observed that the judge had not ejected other spectators or issued the same conditions for coverage on all media organizations. “We therefore conclude that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by imposing an unjustified prior restraint,” they wrote.
Judge Peterson justified her constitutional transgressions as a means of protecting the privacy of an alleged sexual assault victim. But that can be accomplished without trampling the Bill of Rights means and ignored the fact that her name had previously been released in available court documents. “The prior disclosure of her name diminishes any interest in protecting her anonymity,” the justices concluded. “Under these circumstances, the district court’s restrictions could not, as a matter of law, serve an interest of the highest order.”
Justice Peterson has served on the bench for four years after narrowly winning election in 2020. In the Review-Journal’s Judging the Judges survey last year, just 54 percent of surveyed attorneys recommended she be retained. They had particular misgivings about her understanding of the law. Judge Peterson isn’t doing her re-election effort any favors by fulfilling such low expectations.
