Johnson Newspaper Corp. v. Melino

In Johnson Newspaper Corp. v Melino (77 N.Y.2d 1, 8, 564 N.E.2d 1046, 563 N.Y.S.2d 380 [1990]) the Court held that there is no broader protection for the press under State Constitution, article I, 8, than under the United States Constitution with respect to right of access to judicial proceedings. Even though Johnson specifically addressed disciplinary proceedings which are traditionally closed, and Court TV petitions the Court for a ruling on trials which are presumptively open, Johnson does guide the Court in that it addressed whether or not article I, 8 gives greater rights than the First Amendment. Johnson also refused to find that there was a greater protection for the press than for the public to have access to the court. The Court of Appeals declined to recognize a state constitutional right of access to professional disciplinary proceedings, stating that "although our Court has in some cases found our State Constitution to be more protective of expressional freedoms than the Federal Constitution, there is no such precedent with respect to the right of access." (Id. at 8.) In determining whether the State Constitution provides broader protection for speech than the First Amend-ment in a particular case, the Court of Appeals "has not wedded itself to any single methodology, recognizing that the proper approach may vary with the circumstances." As a guiding principle, however, the Court has held that "the function of comparable provisions of the State Constitution, if they are not to be considered purely redundant, is to supplement those rights to meet the needs and expectations of the particular State."