Nevada Supreme Court Strikes Down Judge’s Media Restrictions in High-Profile Trial

Justices Deliver Strong Rebuke to Lower Court (Image Credits: Unsplash)

Las Vegas – Nevada’s Supreme Court intervened decisively to protect press freedoms after a district judge ejected reporters from a sexual assault trial courtroom.[1][2]

Justices Deliver Strong Rebuke to Lower Court

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that District Judge Jessica Peterson manifestly abused her discretion by imposing restrictions on media coverage. A panel of three justices – Chief Justice Douglas Herndon, Justice Elissa Cadish, and Justice Lidia Stiglich – issued the order on Wednesday, January 28, 2026. They found Peterson’s actions constituted an unjustified prior restraint, a form of government censorship prohibited by the First Amendment.

The court directed Peterson to rescind her order barring publication of an alleged victim’s identity and to refrain from excluding Las Vegas Review-Journal reporters from Nathan Chasing Horse’s ongoing trial. Review-Journal Executive Editor Glenn Cook emphasized that the case centered on journalistic independence, not victim identification. “This was about the press’s ability to report what happens in open court,” Cook stated.[1]

Justices noted the decision’s statewide significance and plan to release a detailed opinion soon. Peterson presided over the trial at the Regional Justice Center, where tensions escalated during testimony.

Reporters Ejected Amid Victim Testimony

On January 21, 2026, Judge Peterson ordered the removal of Review-Journal staffers Noble Brigham, Akiya Dillon, and photographer Bizuayehu Tesfaye. The reporters declined to promise they would withhold the alleged victim’s name from publication. They returned after the testimony concluded, but the newspaper swiftly appealed to the Supreme Court.[2]

Peterson justified the move by expressing concern over revictimizing the witness. She had issued a decorum order earlier, requiring media approval for coverage and prohibiting disclosure of victims’, witnesses’, and jurors’ identities without permission. The Review-Journal argued this demanded editorial control and violated access rights.

Chief legal officer Benjamin Lipman hailed the high court’s quick response. The newspaper maintained it had no plans to publish the name but insisted editorial choices remain with journalists.

Ruling Highlights Flaws in Judge’s Approach

The justices sympathized with privacy concerns but ruled the restrictions lacked merit. The alleged victim’s name appeared in public court documents and during open proceedings, undermining anonymity claims. “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 wrote.[1]

Inconsistencies further weakened Peterson’s position. A television journalist avoided the agreement requirement, and members of the public observed the testimony unrestricted. The ejection, justices concluded, punished reporters for resisting an invalid order.

• Victim’s name already public in filings and trial.
• Inconsistent enforcement across media and public.
• No compelling state interest justified the restraint.
• Exclusion violated right of access to proceedings.

Press Freedom Triumph Resonates Beyond Las Vegas

The decision underscores the media’s role as public watchdog in courtrooms. Lipman stressed that most citizens rely on reporters for oversight of judicial processes. Legal challenges highlighted Peterson’s prior criticisms of Review-Journal coverage, including pretrial reporting.

Prosecutors had supported the judge, seeking to shield a child victim’s identity depicted in assault videos. Yet the Supreme Court prioritized constitutional protections over selective controls.

This ruling fortifies barriers against judicial overreach, ensuring open courts serve transparency. How should courts balance victim protections with public access to justice? Share your views in the comments.