438 U.S. 1 (1978)
In 1975 KQED Inc., a public broadcasting station in the San Francisco area, covered events at the Alameda County Jail at Santa Rita, California, including a March 31 report on the suicide of a prisoner in the Greystone facility that quoted a psychiatrist attributing inmate illnesses to conditions there and included Sheriff Houchins's denial of responsibility.1 KQED requested permission from Sheriff Houchins, who controls all access to the jail, to inspect and photograph the Greystone facility, but the request was refused under a policy that prohibited any media access to the jail.2
On June 17, 1975, KQED and the Alameda and Oakland branches of the NAACP filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court for the Northern District of California seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to compel access for inspection, filming, and inmate interviews.3 At the time of filing there was no formal policy on public access, though Sheriff Houchins had been planning monthly tours; on July 8 he announced six monthly tours limited to twenty-five persons each, excluding disciplinary cells and Little Greystone, and barring cameras, tape recorders, and inmate interviews.4 The first tour took place on July 14, 1975, and KQED reporters participated while other tours filled rapidly.5
The District Court conducted hearings and found a steady pattern of adverse publicity concerning jail conditions, that KQED reporters had been denied access while other media representatives were permitted to enter, and that access had been curtailed after the adverse publicity.6 The court also received evidence that tours provided only limited access, omitted key areas, prohibited photography and recordings, kept inmates out of view, and left no availability for unscheduled coverage of newsworthy events.7 The District Court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Sheriff Houchins to permit KQED and responsible media representatives access at reasonable times and hours, to use photographic and sound equipment, and to conduct inmate interviews.8
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment in three separate opinions.9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutional question presented.10
Whether the news media have a constitutional right of access to a county jail over and above any right possessed by the public generally?11
The First Amendment does not guarantee the public a right of access to sources of information within the government's control. This Court has never intimated that the First Amendment grants newsmen a right of access to sources of information not available to the public generally, as established in Pell v. Procunier and Saxbe v. Washington Post Co.12
No. In 1975 KQED Inc., a public broadcasting station in the San Francisco area, covered events at the Alameda County Jail at Santa Rita, California, including a March 31 report on the suicide of a prisoner in the Greystone facility that quoted a psychiatrist attributing inmate illnesses to conditions there and included Sheriff Houchins's denial of responsibility.
KQED requested permission from Sheriff Houchins, who controls all access to the jail, to inspect and photograph the Greystone facility, but the request was refused under a policy that prohibited any media access to the jail. On June 17, 1975, KQED and the Alameda and Oakland branches of the NAACP filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court for the Northern District of California seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to compel access for inspection, filming, and inmate interviews.
At the time of filing there was no formal policy on public access, though Sheriff Houchins had been planning monthly tours. On July 8 he announced six monthly tours limited to twenty-five persons each, excluding disciplinary cells and Little Greystone, and barring cameras, tape recorders, and inmate interviews. The first tour took place on July 14, 1975, and KQED reporters participated while other tours filled rapidly.
The District Court conducted hearings and found a steady pattern of adverse publicity concerning jail conditions, that KQED reporters had been denied access while other media representatives were permitted to enter, and that access had been curtailed after the adverse publicity. The court also received evidence that tours provided only limited access, omitted key areas, prohibited photography and recordings, kept inmates out of view, and left no availability for unscheduled coverage of newsworthy events. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Sheriff Houchins to permit KQED and responsible media representatives access at reasonable times and hours, to use photographic and sound equipment, and to conduct inmate interviews. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment. Under the rule from Pell v. Procunier and Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., the media have no additional right of access beyond that of the general public, so the injunction compelling greater access was improper.13
The news media do not have a constitutional right of access to the county jail over and above any right possessed by the public generally.14
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stewart concurs in the judgment. He agrees that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not guarantee the public or the media a right of access to sources of information within the government's control superior to that of the public generally.15 Stewart notes that the concept of equal access must be accorded flexibility.16 It must accommodate the practical distinctions between the press and the general public.17 For example, journalists need cameras and sound equipment to convey jail conditions effectively to viewers.18
He finds the District Court's preliminary injunction overbroad.19 It granted the press access to areas like Little Greystone and random inmate interviews that had been excluded from public tours.20 This enlarged the scope of what the Sheriff had opened to public view.21 Stewart would not foreclose the possibility of further relief on remand tailored to the extent of public access then permitted.22
Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the public or the media a right of access to sources of information within the government's control?23
The First Amendment protects the right to speak and to publish but does not create a right to gather information from government-controlled sources. There is no discernible basis for a constitutional duty to disclose information about prison conditions that the public and press need to properly perform their role in a democracy.24
No. The established facts demonstrate that KQED sought to compel access through a section 1983 action after its requests to inspect and film the Greystone facility were denied under Sheriff Houchins's media-access prohibition.25 The District Court and Court of Appeals recognized a First and Fourteenth Amendment right of access to information about public institutions.26 The Supreme Court reversed because the Constitution affords no such right to demand access to government-controlled sources.27 The public's interest in knowing about prison conditions does not require that a reporter be allowed to visit a prison at will or that a television camera be permitted to film inside the prison.28
Alternative means of obtaining information, such as reports from prison administrators, lawsuits filed by inmates, and visits by public officials, remain available without creating a constitutional violation.29
The First and Fourteenth Amendments do not guarantee the public or the media a right of access to sources of information within the government's control.30
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brennan, Justice Powell
Justice Stevens dissents. He argues that the First Amendment protects not only the right to publish information but also the right to gather it.31 Without the right to gather information the right to publish would be of little value.32 Stevens contends that petitioner's policy of virtually total exclusion of both the public and the press from the inner portions of the Santa Rita jail, combined with excessive censorship of inmate correspondence, concealed conditions of confinement and abridged the public's right to be informed.33
He distinguishes Pell and Saxbe because those cases involved restrictions that applied to all members of the public and occurred against a background of substantial press and public access.34 Here the restrictions were aimed specifically at the media and initially provided no access at all.35 Stevens would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.36 An official prison policy of concealing such knowledge from the public by arbitrarily cutting off the flow of information at its source abridges the freedom of speech and of the press.37