On Tuesday, February 17, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an order preventing Judge Susan Baker Ross of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas from enforcing certain provisions of an amended order concerning media coverage of an ongoing criminal trial.
The case, State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Baker Ross, centered on restrictions placed on the media’s ability to report on the trial of Charles Jones and Mike Dowling, former officials of FirstEnergy Corp., who are accused of bribery.
The court’s decision addresses two key provisions of Judge Ross’s amended order. The first concerns the publication of jurors’ or prospective jurors’ personally identifiable information (PII). The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Ross cannot enforce the prohibition on publishing PII until she holds a hearing, receives evidence, and makes necessary findings based on that evidence. Furthermore, the court stated that the prohibition cannot extend to information revealed in open court or obtained from publicly available court records.
The second provision addressed by the court pertains to the recording of objecting witnesses. The Supreme Court determined that Judge Ross cannot prevent media representatives from attending and being heard at a witness’s objection hearing. Additionally, the court stated that Judge Ross cannot prohibit the recording of objection hearings that occur in open court, nor can she prohibit the recording of defendants when they are not actively testifying.
The Cincinnati Enquirer, along with Copley Ohio Newspaper, Inc. (Akron Beacon Journal), and Gatehouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc. (Columbus Dispatch), filed a complaint seeking a writ of prohibition against Judge Ross, arguing that her order infringed upon their First Amendment rights. The newspapers contended that the restrictions constituted a prior restraint on speech and violated the public’s right to access court proceedings.
Judge Ross had issued the original order, titled “Media Participation and General Decorum Order,” the day before the trial began, citing the need to maintain orderly proceedings. The order included provisions related to court security, parking, courtroom demeanor, attire, remote viewing, and media participation. Violations of the order could result in sanctions, including exclusion from the courtroom.
The Supreme Court found that the newspapers’ claims were not moot, despite Judge Ross’s issuance of an amended order. The court reasoned that the issues raised were “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” as the original order was in effect for a short period, and the amended order did not fully address the newspapers’ concerns.
The court emphasized that while the Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial and an impartial jury, prior restraints on speech are permissible only under imperative circumstances and with procedural safeguards. The court found that Judge Ross’s amended jury provision constituted an impermissible prior restraint because it was issued without a hearing, evidence, or an opportunity for those affected to be heard.
The Supreme Court concluded that prohibition was the proper remedy in this case, as the newspapers lacked an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. The court denied as moot the newspapers’ motion for leave to file a revised memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
