Here’s a story that should matter to every Nevadan who values freedom of the press and open government. This week, the Nevada Supreme Court stepped in to stop a Las Vegas judge from trampling on First Amendment rights in her own courtroom.
District Judge Jessica Peterson had kicked out three reporters from the Las Vegas Review-Journal during a sexual assault trial. Why? Because they wouldn’t promise to let her control what they could publish about the case.
The state’s highest court ruled on Wednesday that Judge Peterson violated the Constitution and had to let the reporters back in.
What Happened in the Courtroom
Judge Peterson was presiding over the trial of Nathan Chasing Horse, who appeared in the movie “Dances with Wolves” and faces sexual assault charges. During the trial, she demanded that news outlets get permission before publishing any “personal information” about victims, witnesses, or jurors.
When Review-Journal reporters Noble Brigham, Akiya Dillon, and Bizuayehu Tesfaye refused to agree to these terms, Peterson threw them out of the courtroom on January 21. She called being in her courtroom a “privilege” that came with strings attached.
The newspaper’s lawyers went to court on Tuesday to challenge this order. It took just one day for three Supreme Court justices to rule that Peterson had gone way too far.
Why This Matters to Conservatives
Limited government conservatives understand that government power must have checks and balances. One of the most important checks is a free press that can report on what happens in our courts without government censorship.
The Supreme Court used the legal term “prior restraint” to describe what Judge Peterson tried to do. That means the government trying to stop speech before it happens. This is one of the most serious threats to freedom that our Constitution protects against.
As Chief Justice Douglas Herndon and Justices Elissa Cadish and Lidia Stiglich wrote in their ruling:
“Petitioners argue that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in several respects, including by issuing an unconstitutional restraint and violating its right of access to the court. We agree.”
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants a “speedy and public trial.” The public part isn’t optional. It protects all of us by making sure justice happens in the open, where everyone can see it.
The Judge’s Excuse Didn’t Hold Up
Judge Peterson claimed she was protecting the privacy of an alleged sexual assault victim. That’s a legitimate concern. But the Supreme Court found her approach didn’t actually accomplish that goal and violated constitutional rights in the process.
The justices pointed out that the alleged victim’s name had already appeared in public court documents and had been mentioned during the trial.
They wrote:
“Although we are sympathetic to the alleged victim’s privacy concerns, the prior disclosure of her name diminishes any interest in protecting her anonymity.”
The court also noted that Peterson applied her rules inconsistently. At least one TV journalist wasn’t asked to agree to the same restrictions. Other members of the public could stay in the courtroom during testimony. This showed the order wasn’t really about protection—it was about control.
What Critics and Supporters Say
The Review-Journal’s Executive Editor Glenn Cook made clear the newspaper never intended to publish the victim’s name anyway.
Cook said:
“This case was never about identifying or not identifying the victim of an alleged sexual assault. This was about the press’s ability to report what happens in open court.”
Some people might argue that protecting victims justifies some limits on press coverage. But constitutional experts recognize that once you give judges power to censor the news based on good intentions, that power can be abused in countless ways.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court ordered Judge Peterson to stop excluding Review-Journal reporters and to cancel her order trying to control what the newspaper publishes. The court also said it plans to issue a more detailed written opinion because this issue affects courts statewide.
Judge Peterson has been on the bench for four years after narrowly winning election in 2020. In the Review-Journal’s survey of attorneys last year, only 54 percent recommended keeping her. Lawyers specifically questioned her understanding of the law. This Supreme Court rebuke won’t help her re-election chances.
What Conservatives Can Do
Pay attention to judicial races. Judges who don’t respect constitutional limits on their power can cause serious harm to our freedoms. When judges come up for retention or election, look at their records on protecting constitutional rights.
Support news organizations that fight for press freedom, even when you disagree with their coverage on other topics. A free press benefits everyone by keeping government accountable.
Most importantly, remember that limited government means limiting all branches—including the judiciary. Judges aren’t royalty. They work for us, and they must follow the Constitution just like everyone else.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
