'Petition granted by unpublished PER CURIAM order. ORDER PER CURIAM: This matter comes before us on a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by a group of news organizations and a nonprofit, all of whom the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia permitted to intervene in a pending criminal case.
Having been largely rebuffed by the district court, Petitioners seek vacatur of a sealing and gag order which prohibits: (1) public access to most documents filed in the case and (2) the parties, their counsel, potential trial participants, court personnel, and others from discussing the case with any member of the media. The district court, sua sponte, issued its order restricting access to the docket and prohibiting extrajudicial statements one day after a grand jury sitting in the district returned the indictment.
Petitioners moved to intervene in the case and requested the district court to reconsider or vacate its order. Defendant, Donald Blankenship, opposed the motion; the government took no position as to the propriety of the order or of its scope. After a hearing, the district court granted Petitioners’ motion to intervene and modified the sealing and gag order. We granted Petitioners’ Motion for Expedited Consideration of the Petition for Mandamus given the substantial First Amendment issues at stake.
We have had the benefit of oral argument on behalf of Petitioners, the government, and Defendant Blankenship, and we have carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties and amici. Petitioners appropriately seek mandamus relief, as it “is the preferred method for review of orders restricting press activity related to criminal proceedings.” In re State-Record, Co., Inc., 917 F.2d 124, 126 (4th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Petitioners meet the constitutional requirements for standing because their right under the First Amendment to gather news, see Branzburg v.
Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972), and to receive speech from willing speakers, see Stephens v. Cnty. of Albemarle, 524 F.3d 485, 492 (4th Cir.2008), has been directly impaired by the district court’s order. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). We review de novo the constitutional questions presented in the Petition. In re Charlotte Observer, 882 F.2d 850, 852 (4th Cir.1989). The public enjoys a qualified right of access to criminal trials, see Richmond Newspapers v.
Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980); pretrial proceedings, see Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 14, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”); and “documents submitted in the course of a trial,” including documents filed in connection with a motion to dismiss an indictment and other pretrial filings. In re Time Inc., 182 F.3d 270, 271 (4th Cir.1999); see also In re Charlotte Observer, 882 F.2d at 852.
Where the right of an accused to a fair trial is at stake, the public will not be denied access absent “specific findings ... demonstrating that, first, there is a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent and, second, reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant’s fair trial rights.” Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 14, 106 S.Ct. 2735.
Having carefully reviewed the record, although we commend the district court’s sincere and forthright proactive effort to ensure to the maximum extent possible that Blankenship’s right to a fair trial before an impartial jury will be protected, we are constrained to conclude that the order entered here cannot be sustained. See id. See also In re Morrissey, 168 F.3d 134, 139-40 (4th Cir.1999); In re Russell, 726 F.2d 1007, 1010 (4th Cir.1984); Ne braska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 562, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976).
Accordingly, the petition for mandamus is GRANTED and the district court is directed to enter an order vacating its amended sealing and gag order of January 7, 2015.
SO ORDERED The amended order states in relevant part: "Wherefore, the Court does hereby ORDER that neither the parties, their counsel, other representatives or members of their staff, potential witnesses, including actual and alleged victims, investigators, family members of actual and alleged victims as well as of the Defendant, nor any court personnel shall make any statements of any nature, in any form, or release any documents to the media or any other entity regarding the facts or substance of this case.” "The Court further ORDERS that any and all motions, stipulations, discovery requests, responses, supplemental requests and responses, and other relevant documents be filed directly with the Clerk pursuant to Rule 49.1 of the Local Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that access to any documents filed on CM/ECF in this matter, which contain information or argument regarding the facts or substance of this case, be restricted to case participants and court personnel.
However, this order shall not be applicable to documents which have previously been released publicly or orders of the Court, absent specific instruction to the contrary. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to make the docket entries publicly available.”