CJ Griffin and Bruce S. Rosen Challenge Prior Restraint on Press Coverage in New Jersey Appeals Court

Pashman Stein Partners CJ Griffin and Bruce S. Rosen filed an appellate brief on behalf of New Brunswick Today, arguing that a New Jersey trial court's order restricting news coverage of a school lockdown violates the First Amendment's prohibition against prior restraints. The brief received media attention in a Reason Magazine article titled, “A New Jersey News Outlet Asks the Courts To Stop a Judge's Censorship.”

The appeal challenges an order barring the publication of a student's identity and requiring court-approved redactions before surveillance footage could be republished. In their brief, Griffin and Rosen argue that the restrictions are presumptively unconstitutional and conflict with longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent protecting the publication of truthful information on matters of public concern.

The appeal also contends that the trial court improperly limited protections under New Jersey's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) and failed to provide the prompt constitutional review required when prior restraints on the press are imposed.

From Reason:

After [the trial court judge] declined to promptly consider New Brunswick Today's motion asking him to lift his initial order, the news outlet "again filed emergent applications for a stay, to have the trial court hear the motion sooner, or to have the motion assigned to a different judge. Our appellate courts denied that relief purely due to deference to a trial court's control of its own calendar. But neither the federal nor state [constitution allows] prior restraints to be imposed for weeks without any First Amendment review. To comply with the First Amendment, the prior restraints should have immediately stayed until a court could perform the correct review,” Griffin and Rosen wrote in the brief.

When [the trial court judge] issued his July 9 order, "the appellate courts again denied a stay, erroneously stating there was no 'irreparable harm. That falls far short of the immediate, exacting review the First Amendment demands,” the brief says.

To read the full article in Reason Magazine, click here.