The Supreme Court of Ohio blocked a judge's orders limiting media access in the criminal trial of two former FirstEnergy executives.

On the eve of the trial of Charles Jones and Mike Dowling, Summit County Common Pleas Court Judge Susan Baker Ross issued a “media participation and general decorum order” intended to “provide for orderly proceedings.” Three Ohio newspapers -- the Akron Beacon Journal, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the Columbus Dispatch -- objected to provisions restricting the publication of information about jurors and about recording or photographing witnesses who objected to being recorded.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition that prevents Judge Baker Ross from enforcing the order unless certain modifications are made. The trial of Jones and Dowling began on Jan. 27 and is ongoing.

Judge Issues Coverage Restrictions
In its objections to the judge’s restrictions, the newspapers stated the trial is of “enormous public interest,” in part because Jones and Dowling have included on their witness lists Gov. Mike DeWine and former Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, now a U.S. senator. The two former executives are accused of participating in the bribery of public officials, which in turn provided FirstEnergy with favorable regulatory treatment and significant financial benefits.

After Judge Baker Ross issued her media participation order, and the media objected, she issued an amended order. The newspapers still took issue with two provisions, which the Supreme Court addressed. The Court characterized one as the “jury provision,” and the other as the “witness provision.”

In her amended jury order, Judge Baker Ross stated that “based on findings of facts,” she was prohibiting the media from making available any personally identifiable information of any jury member or prospective juror until they have been fully excused from service in the case. She wrote it was “necessary to preserve the jury system and assure individual jurors that they and their families will not be harassed or jeopardized during the proceedings.”

The witness provision stated that each witness has a right to object to “media coverage” in “any form including but not limited to photographs, audio recording, video recording, and any form of transmission including live streaming.”

Supreme Court Analyzed Juror Restrictions
The newspapers argued that the jury provision amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on their rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. They claimed the judge issued the order without a hearing and without any evidence to support the necessity of it. Additionally, it prevented them from reporting information about jurors from public records, information disclosed in open court, and information gathered outside of the courtroom.

The opinion explained that a judicial order forbidding publication before publication takes place is a prior restraint on speech, and the U.S. Supreme Court has described prior restraints as “the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.”

The Court noted that in criminal proceedings, the trial judge must balance important press and access rights with the rights of the defendants to a fair trial. The trial court can consider measures to effectively balance constitutional rights, but cannot first turn to orders not to publish without considering other alternatives.

The Court noted that Judge Baker Ross’s order restricts the media from publishing identifying information about the jurors regardless of how that information was obtained. In addition, the order stated it was based on “findings of fact.” However, the Court found no indication that the judge conducted a hearing, received evidence, or permitted those affected by the order to be heard.

The opinion indicated that the order’s effort to prevent reporting information about jurors revealed in open court or through public records is unenforceable. To continue the restriction on providing juror information, the judge must hold a hearing and make the necessary findings from the evidence, the Court ruled.

Rules on Recording Witnesses Examined
The opinion noted the newspapers did not raise a constitutional right to record witnesses who objected to being recorded, but rather cited Ohio rules governing court procedures. The Court explained that under the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio, a judge can permit any victim or witness who objects to being recorded “the opportunity to be heard in advance of testifying.”

Judge Baker Ross issued an order stating any witness had the right to object to media coverage and would be afforded an opportunity to explain why outside of the presence of media. If the witness objects in open court, the order prevents the media from covering the objection.

The Court stated that it has previously ruled the public and the press have the right to access court proceedings and to speak freely. Ohio court rules require judges to permit media coverage of court proceedings that are open to the public.

The Court found the judge’s order allowed a witness to object, but does not give others impacted by the order to be heard on the appropriateness of the objection.

“A recording restriction based on a witness’s objection without notice and an opportunity for all those affected – including the media – to be heard is grounds for issuance of a writ of prohibition,” the Court stated.

The provision forbidding coverage of the witness raising an objection in open court violates the Court’s prior determination that all open court proceedings can be recorded by the media. The opinion noted that Judge Baker Ross can follow a procedure that would allow the court to be closed to hear the witness’s objections.

The Court also agreed with the newspapers’ contention that the witness provision was too broad. They maintained that the defendants, Jones and Downing, could object to being recorded because they could potentially testify. The rule could prevent the media from recording the defendants inside and outside of the courtroom, even if they do not testify, the newspapers claimed.

The Court indicated that the definition of “witness” under the Court’s recording rules does not include criminal defendants who intend to testify but are not on the stand. The defendants can be recorded when they are not testifying, the Court concluded.

2026-1118. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Baker Ross, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-510.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.