Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), argued 17 Apr. 1974, decided 25 June 1974 by vote of 9 to 0; Burger for the Court, Brennan, Rehnquist, and White concurring. In this case, the Supreme Court took up the issue of whether a Florida statute that granted a political candidate the right to equal space to reply to newspaper attacks on his personal character or official record violated the First Amendment guarantee of a free press.

In 1972, the Miami Herald had twice printed editorials critical of Pat Tornillo, a local teachers' union leader and candidate for the state house of representatives. In response to the newspaper's criticism and in accordance with Florida's 1913 “right to reply” statute, Tornillo demanded that the Herald print verbatim his replies to the negative editorials. When the newspaper refused to comply, Tornillo filed suit. After a circuit court declared the statute unconstitutional, the Florida Supreme Court, in Tornillo v. Miami Herald Publishing Company (1973), reversed the decision on appeal, upholding the right to reply law as furthering the “broad societal interest in the free flow of information to the public” (p. 82).

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the justices reversed the judgment of the state court by holding that the statute was a clear violation of the First Amendment guarantee of a free press. “The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper,” wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger, “and treatment of public issues and public officials—whether fair or unfair—constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment” (p. 258). Government regulation of this crucial process, the Court believed, violated the constitutional guarantees of a free press. In striking down the law, the Court applied precedents that rejected government‐enforced access to newspapers beginning with Associated Press v. United States (1945) but overlooked past decisions that upheld “right of reply” regulations in news broadcasting, particularly the Court's opinion in *Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969).

See also Libel; Reply, Right of; Speech and the Press.

Timothy S. Huebner