1. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE v. LEE 353 N.W.2d 213 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984) Case Brief

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE v. LEE PURPOSE: This case is an example of the regulatory feature of appellate courts. While the trial court may regulate matters through the sanction of contempt of court, the appellate court has the authority to regulate the trial court, in this instance by way of a petition brought to it requesting a writ of prohibition.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE v. LEE CAUSE OF ACTION: Petition for a writ of prohibition (to set aside contempt of court and vacate an order against publication).

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE v. LEE FACTS: In June 1984, the trial court issued an order that all parties in what was presumably a juvenile dependency case cease and desist from publishing letters or statements having to do with the proceeding. Subsequently, the minor’s parents wrote two letters to the editor of a newspaper in the area. On July 27, 1984, the trial court, believing the letters to be a violation of its order, ordered a contempt hearing.

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE v. LEE ISSUE: Whether a court may issue an order forbidding publication of information about a juvenile case obtained from involved parties and enforce that order at a contempt hearing.

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE v. LEE HOLDING: No. Order against publication vacated.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE v. LEE REASONING: A prior restraint of speech necessitates a compelling governmental interest, and must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. In this case, the governmental interest in maintaining privacy in a juvenile proceeding is an important and substantial government interest, but does not rise to the level required to justify a prior restraint.