A judge’s gag order in the Vinton County child endangerment case raises First Amendment questions

By: Thomas Billington
Posted on: Wednesday, July 15, 2026

< < Back to

ATHENS, OHIO (WOUB) — The gag order issued by the judge in the Vinton County child endangerment case raises some First Amendment issues.

There are two basic types of gag orders: One that restricts parties in a case from talking about it, which is what the judge issued in this case, and one that restricts the media from reporting on a case.

The latter is “generally classified as a prior restraint, which is presumptively unconstitutional under the First Amendment,” said Andrew Geronimo, director of the Dr. Frank Stanton First Amendment Clinic at Case Western Reserve law school. “The First Amendment stands for the proposition that generally, the government can’t tell people what to publish or what not to publish.”

Geronimo said a gag order on the media generally “requires an evidentiary hearing where whoever’s requesting it says here are the reasons why we need such an extreme measure.”

But even gag orders that restrict the parties to a case from talking about it should be subject to careful review by a judge before they are issued.

“The court is supposed to review specific concerns and then make particular findings that other alternatives to a gag order, because it is a serious restriction on speech rights and the public’s right to receive information,” Geronimo said. The judge, he said, is supposed to consider alternatives.

The gag order in this case was requested by one of four defendants accused of keeping 16 children confined to a small room in a home in the village of Hamden.

The judge said she issued the gag order out of concerns that public comments made by parties to the case could prejudice a jury and interfere with the defendant’s rights to a fair trial. The order was issued about an hour after the request was made.

Geronimo said there are other alternatives to a gag order that can protect defendants that judges should consider first.

For example, prospective jurors can be questioned by attorneys for both sides to determine if they have a bias, and these people can be dismissed from the jury pool.

Gag orders can be challenged, Geronimo said. One way is through what’s called an intervention. “So that is a member of the public or a member of the media might try to become a party in this criminal case saying, ‘Hey, your honor, I have to intervene on behalf of [a group].’”  

The other way is to file an action for writs of prohibition and mandamus, which would be filed in the court of appeals.