Associated Press v. Neal

Background Media groups sued the Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison and the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction, alleging that Indiana’s policy restricting execution attendance to specific invitees violated their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to allow them to view executions, arguing the policy violated their right of access and the Press Clause by singling out the press. The district court denied the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed. The court’s reasoning The court applied the experience-and-logic framework from Press-Enterprise II. It concluded that executions do not resemble court proceedings and have not historically been open to the public, as states moved executions to private enclosures in the nineteenth century. The court rejected the argument that limited witness attendance constituted a tradition of openness. Regarding the Press Clause claim, the court held that the policy was generally applicable because it treated the press the same as the public, and the exceptions for family and officials did not undermine the government’s interest in dignity. The dissent What it means going forward Indiana’s policy restricting execution attendance to the warden, medical staff, spiritual advisors, and a limited number of invitees remains in effect. Media organizations cannot claim a First Amendment right to attend executions unless invited by the inmate.