Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
These landmark cases aren't just historical footnotes—they're the foundation of every decision you'll make as a working journalist. When you're deciding whether to publish a controversial story, protect a source, or cover a criminal trial, you're operating within legal boundaries these cases established. You're being tested on your understanding of prior restraint, defamation standards, source protection, and access rights—the core tensions between press freedom and competing interests like national security, individual reputation, and fair trial rights.
Don't just memorize case names and dates. Know what legal principle each case established and how courts balance First Amendment protections against other constitutional rights. The exam will ask you to apply these precedents to new scenarios, so focus on the reasoning behind each ruling and how cases build on or limit each other.
The First Amendment's strongest protection is against prior restraint—government action that prevents publication before it happens. Courts have consistently held that stopping speech before it occurs is more dangerous than punishing it afterward.
Compare: Near v. Minnesota vs. Pentagon Papers—both struck down prior restraint, but Near involved state censorship of a local newspaper while Pentagon Papers tested whether national security could override press freedom at the federal level. If an FRQ asks about government secrecy vs. press rights, the Pentagon Papers case is your strongest example.
These cases define when journalists can be sued for publishing false information. The Court recognized that fear of lawsuits chills speech, so it created higher barriers for plaintiffs—especially public figures who have platforms to respond to criticism.
Compare: Sullivan vs. Hustler—both require actual malice for public figure plaintiffs, but Sullivan addressed factual reporting while Hustler protected obviously satirical content. The key insight: the Court prioritizes breathing room for speech over protecting powerful people's feelings.
Journalists often promise confidentiality to sources, but what happens when courts demand testimony? These cases reveal the limits of press privilege when it conflicts with the justice system's need for evidence.
Compare: Branzburg stands alone as a loss for press freedom in this list. While other cases expanded First Amendment protections, Branzburg established that the press has no special constitutional status when the justice system needs information. This tension between journalist ethics (protecting sources) and legal obligations (testifying truthfully) remains unresolved.
The First Amendment doesn't just protect what journalists publish—it also guarantees access to information about how government operates, particularly in the courts.
Compare: Richmond Newspapers vs. Tornillo—both protect press independence, but from opposite directions. Richmond guarantees access to information, while Tornillo prevents government from dictating what information must be published. Together, they establish that the press controls its own editorial decisions while maintaining access to public proceedings.
Student journalists operate under different rules than professional media. These cases establish that schools can regulate student expression in ways that would be unconstitutional if applied to adult journalists.
Compare: Tinker vs. Hazelwood—both involve student expression, but they point in opposite directions. Tinker (personal expression, independent action) gives students strong protection; Hazelwood (school-sponsored publications, curricular activities) gives administrators broad censorship authority. Know which standard applies based on whether the school sponsors the speech.
| Legal Principle | Key Cases |
|---|---|
| Prior Restraint Prohibited | Near v. Minnesota, Pentagon Papers, Nebraska Press |
| Actual Malice Standard | Sullivan, Hustler v. Falwell |
| Source Protection Limits | Branzburg v. Hayes |
| Right of Access | Richmond Newspapers |
| Editorial Autonomy | Miami Herald v. Tornillo |
| Student Expression (Protected) | Tinker v. Des Moines |
| Student Press (Limited) | Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier |
| National Security vs. Press | Pentagon Papers |
Both Near v. Minnesota and the Pentagon Papers case address prior restraint. What distinguishes the government interests at stake in each case, and why did the press prevail in both?
A public figure sues a newspaper for a satirical cartoon that caused emotional distress but contains no false factual claims. Which case controls, and what must the plaintiff prove to win?
Compare Tinker and Hazelwood: A student writes an editorial criticizing school policy in (a) the official school newspaper and (b) a personal blog. Which standard applies to each, and why?
Why did Branzburg v. Hayes lead to the passage of state shield laws, and how does statutory protection differ from constitutional protection for source confidentiality?
If a judge closes a criminal trial to prevent prejudicial publicity, which case establishes the standard for challenging that closure, and what must the press demonstrate to gain access?