ÃÛÌÒÖ±²¥

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether a publisher can be held for contempt for an out-of-court editorial statement concerning a pending criminal case. In a companion case: whether a labor leader was can be held in contempt based on a telegram he sent to the Secretary of Labor regarding a pending case.

Action

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bridges and the Los Angeles Times, holding that free speech and free press protections outweighed concerns about potential interference with pending judicial cases. In majority opinion, Justice Hugo Black emphasized that freedom of expression must be given the widest latitude, especially when discussing matters of public interest, and punishing speech because of its possible influence on judges or court proceedings (without clear, present, and immediate threat) is unconstitutional.

Facts/Syllabus

Harry Bridges was a prominent labor leader in the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. Bridges sent a telegram to Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins regarding a pending case in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and he suggested that the union go on strike if the court ruled unfavorably. Separately, the Los Angeles Times published editorials criticizing pending judicial proceedings. California courts (under the state's contempt powers) held both Bridges and the Los Angeles Times in contempt of court for comments that allegedly threatened the fairness of judicial proceedings. They were fined for "out-of-court publications" that could allegedly influence the administration of justice.

Bridges and the Lost Angeles Times challenged their fines in the Superior Court, which upheld their fines. So then, both parties appealed to the California Supreme Court of California, which affirmed the lower court's ruling.

Importance of Case

Free speech doesn't lose protection simply because it's harsh, critical, or about pending court matters. Bridges v. California strengthened First Amendment protections by ensuring that public commentary on ongoing legal matters could not easily be punished without proof of a serious, immediate threat to justice. There must be a "clear and present danger" before speech can be punished for interfering with the administration of justice.