Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for the County of Norfolk

The Court decided to strike down the Massachusetts law in the name of the First Amendment. Justice Brennan, who wrote the majority decision, agreed that some trials could be closed to the public and/or the press. However, as Brennan wrote, the Massachusetts law was simply too broad.

Brennan found two major arguments behind the reasoning for the Massachusetts law: that minors should be spared the humiliation of having to testify publicly about a traumatic sexual crime, and that more minors would be likely to come forward to report sexual crimes if they knew their privacy would be protected.

Brennan disagreed with the second argument. He pointed out that no one had offered any empirical evidence that protecting privacy did in fact encourage more crime victims to come forward. Moreover, he said, many people are unwilling to face the publicity of a criminal trial, not just victims of sex crimes who are minors. The Massachusetts law had no reason for singling out one type of trial to close on that basis.

Brennan added that the Massachusetts law did not guarantee absolute secrecy about a rape trial. In the Globe case, for example, the names of the victims were already in the public record. The press could have published their names even if no reporters had been allowed at the trial. Likewise, the press would have had access to the trial transcripts and could have published what it wished of their testimony. If victims were worried about publicity, the Massachusetts law would not allay their concerns; therefore, the law was restrictive for no good reason.