The ruling addresses a high-profile criminal trial involving Nathan Chasing Horse, who faces multiple felonies including kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor. During the proceedings, the Eighth Judicial District Court ordered media personnel to refer to the alleged victim only by her initials and threatened contempt sanctions for publishing her real name.
The district court imposed these restrictions despite the victim’s identity having already been repeatedly disclosed in publicly filed grand jury transcripts and during open court proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the prior restraint violated First Amendment protections because the information was already a matter of public record.
Chief Justice Herndon, writing for the court, noted that the district court relied on NRS 200.3772 and Marsy’s Law to justify the gag order, but found no evidence that the victim had availed herself of the statutory pseudonym provisions. The court further observed that these statutes do not restrict press publication and would be unconstitutional if they did.
The district court also excluded the Review-Journal from the courtroom when it refused to submit to the publication ban. The Supreme Court ruled this exclusion violated the press’s right of access to criminal trials, noting that the measure was not narrowly tailored and served only to punish the media for refusing an unconstitutional restraint.
The court granted the emergency petition, directing issuance of the writ to vacate the restrictions and prevent further exclusion based on the media’s refusal to acquiesce. The decision reinforces that prior restraints on reporting criminal proceedings invoke a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality and require an interest of the highest order to justify.