Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Houchins v. KQED

United States Supreme Court
438 U.S. 1 (1978)


Facts

Houchins (defendant), sheriff of Alameda County, controls all access to the Alameda County Jail. KQED (plaintiff) operates licensed television and radio broadcasting stations and requested permission to inspect and take pictures within the Greystone facility. After permission was refused, KQED and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed suit in federal district court, claiming that the denial of access violated the First Amendment. Shortly after the suit was filed, Houchins announced a change in prison policy and opened up the prison to regular public tours. News media were permitted early access to tours, although no cameras or tape recorders were allowed. Inmates were generally hidden from view and were not permitted to be interviewed. Additionally, only limited areas of the prison were included on the tour. The district court preliminarily enjoined Houchins from excluding KQED personnel and other news media representatives from all parts of the jail, as well as from preventing their use of photographic and sound equipment, and conduction of interviews. The court of appeals affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Burger, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Stewart, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.