Opinion
No. 115989.
December 21, 2000.
COA: 215744, Macomb CC: 95-4762 DM
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the November 23, 1999 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
For the reasons stated in my concurring statement in In re Detroit Free Press (Ireland v Smith), No. 116012, 463 Mich. 935 (2000), I join in the order denying the application for leave to appeal.
I agree with the order denying the application for leave to appeal. However, I think that issues regarding the propriety and scope of gag orders merit further consideration by this Court. Therefore, I support having the Court open an administrative file to address these issues.
I would remand this matter to the trial court. I think that Judge Markman's dissent below makes a colorable argument that, although the gag order at issue did not constitute a prior restraint on appellant, it nonetheless implicated First Amendment rights. Moreover, apart from this constitutional concern, the gag order appears overly broad in terms of the people restricted from communicating with the press, the scope of the restrictions, and its continuation beyond the stage of litigation during which it was entered. Accordingly, I would remand this matter to the trial court to precisely articulate (1) the interests protected by the order; (2) the effect of the gag order, if any, on the First Amendment rights of appellant; and then to weigh these interests and reconsider the appropriateness of continuing the gag order in its current form.
Kelly, J., would grant leave to appeal.
Markman, J., not participating.