Las Vegas Review-Journal Challenges Judge's Courtroom Access Restrictions

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Lawyers for the Las Vegas Review-Journal have filed a challenge to District Judge Jessica Peterson's decision to bar three of the newspaper's journalists from witnessing an alleged victim's testimony in the sexual assault trial of Nathan Chasing Horse. The filing argued that Peterson's actions amounted to unconstitutional prior restraint and deprived the Review-Journal of its First Amendment right to attend criminal trials.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing tension between press freedom and judicial authority, as well as the challenges media organizations face in balancing the public's right to information with the need to protect victims' privacy in high-profile criminal proceedings. The outcome could set an important precedent regarding media access to courtrooms.

The details

The Review-Journal lawyers argued that because the alleged victim was planning to testify using a pseudonym and had already been identified by name during the trial and in public court records, the judge's order to bar the newspaper's reporters did nothing to actually protect the victim's identity. They also claimed that other news organizations and members of the public were allowed to observe the testimony, but Peterson did not ask them to agree to the same restrictions she imposed on the Review-Journal.

• On Wednesday, Review-Journal reporters Noble Brigham, Akiya Dillon and Bizuayehu Tesfaye were ejected from the courtroom after refusing to promise not to publish the name of one of Chasing Horse's alleged victims.
• On Tuesday, lawyers for the Review-Journal filed a challenge to Judge Peterson's decision to bar their reporters from witnessing the alleged victim's testimony.

What they’re saying

What’s next

The Nevada Supreme Court will consider the Review-Journal's emergency request to overturn Judge Peterson's restrictions on media access to the Chasing Horse trial.