IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COURT WAS ASKED TO REVIEW THE VALIDITY OF A JUDICIAL ORDER TO THE NEWS MEDIA PROHIBITING THE PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT A CRIMINAL TRIAL. THE COURT, BALANCING THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AGAINST THE RIGHT TO FREE PRESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, HELD THAT ANY PRIOR RESTRAINT OF THE PRESS BEARS A HEAVY PRESUMPTION AGAINST ITS VALIDITY; AND THE FACTS IN THIS CASE WERE NOT SO COMPELLING AS TO REQUIRE THE NEBRASKA DISTRICT COURT TO ISSUE A PRIOR RESTRAINT IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE A FAIR TRIAL. CASES DEALING WITH PRETRIAL PUBLICITY AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL ARE REVIEWED, AND THE STRONG JUDICIAL TRADITION AGAINST THE USE OF PRIOR RESTRAINTS OF ANY KIND OVER THE PRESS ARE EXAMINED PRIOR TO AN ANALYSIS OF THE COURT FINDING AND THE FOUR CONCURRING OPINIONS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT EVEN WITHOUT A SWITCH TO THE POSITION EXPRESSED BY JUSTICE BRENNAN (A BLANKET PROHIBITION OF RESTRICTIVE ORDERS DIRECTED TO THE PRESS), THE COURT HAS RAISED AN ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLE BARRIER TO JUDICIAL ORDERS RESTRICTING PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. ANY COURT WHICH ATTEMPTS TO USE SUCH AN ORDER MUST CONSIDER: (A) THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF COVERAGE, (B) THE EFFICACY OF OTHER MEASURES, AND (C) THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER. ITS FINDINGS MUST MANDATE A RESTRICTIVE ORDER, NOT JUST SUGGEST THE ADVISABILITY OF SUCH AN ORDER. THERE MUST BE CERTAIN PREJUDICE AND THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE PRESS MUST BE VERY LIMITED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)...ELW