The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the Las Vegas Sun’s appeal regarding its joint operating agreement (JOA) with the Review-Journal, solidifying a legal victory for the Review-Journal. This decision upholds an August ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which deemed the agreement between the two newspapers “unenforceable.” The Supreme Court’s refusal effectively remands the case back to the 9th Circuit for further action.
The core issue revolves around the legality of a 20-year-old arrangement that mandates the Review-Journal to publish a separate section for the Sun. According to the ruling, the agreement was deemed illegal as it was not signed by the U.S. Attorney General, a requirement stipulated by the Newspaper Preservation Act.
Ben Lipman, chief legal officer of the Review-Journal, expressed confidence in the court’s decision, stating, “We never thought there was any basis for the Sun to ask the Supreme Court to review and overturn the 9th Circuit’s well-reasoned opinion.” He added that he looks forward to moving past what has been years of costly litigation.
Background of the Joint Operating Agreement
The Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun entered their joint operating agreement in 1989, a response to the Sun’s financial struggles at the time. Initially, this arrangement allowed the Sun to operate as an afternoon newspaper while it became a section of the Review-Journal on weekends and holidays. In 2005, the two newspapers renegotiated the agreement, ultimately making the Sun a daily section within the Review-Journal.
Tensions escalated more than six years ago when the Sun filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the Review-Journal. This was in response to the Review-Journal’s claim that the Sun had breached their agreement by producing a printed section that failed to meet quality standards. The Sun’s legal team argued that their 2005 agreement had been approved by the U.S. Department of Justice. However, subsequent investigations revealed that the agreement lacked the necessary approval.
The Newspaper Preservation Act explicitly states that it is unlawful to enforce a joint operating arrangement without prior written consent from the Attorney General. In 2024, U.S. District Judge Anne R. Traum denied the Review-Journal’s request for summary judgment to dismiss the case, leading to an appeal.
The 9th Circuit Court sided with the Review-Journal, ruling that the lower court had erred in maintaining the injunction that preserved the original terms of the JOA. With this latest Supreme Court decision, the litigation appears to be nearing its conclusion, potentially ending an agreement that was originally set to last until 2040.
The Last Joint Operating Agreement in the U.S.
Once, there were nearly 30 joint operating agreements across the United States, facilitating collaboration between newspapers while allowing for editorial independence. The Las Vegas agreement is now the last standing arrangement of its kind.
These agreements aimed to preserve multiple print newspapers and their varied editorial perspectives by combining business operations while keeping newsroom functions separate. The Review-Journal managed the business and distribution aspects of the Sun section, which retained editorial control.
As digital news consumption has surged, joint operating agreements have become increasingly obsolete. Keith Moyer, publisher and editor of the Review-Journal, noted, “JOAs began at a time when print newspapers had little if any competition other than each other. Those days, as everyone knows, are long gone.” He emphasized the competitive nature of the modern news landscape, where consumers access information through numerous platforms, including online news, mobile applications, and social media.
As this situation develops, further updates will be provided regarding the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision and its impact on both newspapers.
