Case Explained: ASSOCIATED PRESS v. RON NEAL and LLOYD ARNOLD

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-05 The seventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction sought by media organizations challenging an Indiana policy that restricts attendance at executions to specific categories of individuals, including the warden, medical personnel, spiritual advisors, up to five inmates’ invitees, and up to eight victim family members. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claims. Regarding the right-of-access claim, the court applied the *Press-Enterprise II* “experience and logic” framework, which requires a proceeding to have historically been open to the public and for public access to play a significant positive role in the process’s functioning. The court concluded that executions do not satisfy the “experience” prong because, unlike criminal trials, there is no unbroken tradition of openness; rather, the historical trend since the 1830s has been toward private executions, with Indiana specifically mandating private enclosures since 1852. Because this historical test was not met, the court determined that a qualified First Amendment right of access does not attach to executions, rendering further analysis under the “logic” prong unnecessary. Regarding the Press Clause claim, the court applied the rule that generally applicable laws do not violate the First Amendment simply because they affect the press’s ability to gather news, as the press holds no special constitutional right of access beyond that afforded the general public. The court found that Indiana’s policy is generally applicable because it restricts all members of the public from attending unless they fall within specific categories based on their relationship to the inmate or victim. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the policy should be analyzed under the “general applicability” standard recently developed in Free Exercise Clause cases (*Fulton v. City of Philadelphia*), declining to import that test into Press Clause jurisprudence. Furthermore, the court found that even under such a standard, the presence of authorized witnesses (such as family and medical staff) does not undermine the state’s interest in preserving the dignity of the condemned, meaning the policy remains generally applicable. The practical consequence of this decision is that the Indiana Department of Correction may continue to enforce its current execution attendance guidelines without court intervention, and the media plaintiffs are barred from obtaining an injunction to attend forthcoming executions under the First Amendment. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.