Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Nev.: The Las Vegas Sun granted new injunction against the Las Vegas Review-Journal, (Mar 13, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

“The public interest weighs heavily in favor of maintaining two competing editorial voices in the relevant market.”

The federal district court in Las Vegas, Nevada dissolved an injunction between the Las Vegas Sun (“Sun”) and the Las Vegas Review-Journal (“RJ”) as required by the Ninth Circuit but granted in part a new preliminary injunction relief to keep the Sun in print while a long-running antitrust suit proceeds between the newspapers. The court granted the RJ’s motion to dissolve the stipulated preliminary injunction in conformity with the remand and granted the Sun’s motion for new preliminary injunctive relief. The Sun also moved for leave to amend its complaint a second time in order to address the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and update its allegations to conform to the evidence. The court granted interim injunctive relief finding it necessary to protect community and consumer interests, but preserved time to fully brief and adjudicate the Sun’s motion to amend its complaint and ensure the availability of any appropriate injunctive relief post-trial (Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Adelson, No. 2:19-cv-01667-ART-MDC (D. Nev. Mar. 12, 2026)).

Background. In 1989, the owners of the two newspapers of general circulation in the Las Vegas metropolitan area were the Las Vegas Sun and the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The Las Vegas Sun was in an economically precarious situation, so the owners of the two newspapers agreed to a Joint Operating Arrangement (the 1989 JOA) whereby the production, distribution, and financial operations of the two newspapers were consolidated together while the editorial aspects behind the respective newspapers' content remained independent of one another.

The 1989 JOA was made with the NPA in mind. The NPA, a 1970 law (15 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1804), sought to preserve otherwise failing newspapers by granting them an exemption from the antitrust laws allowing them, with the Attorney General’s prior written consent, to combine publishing operations with another newspaper while preserving the independence of the respective newspapers’ editorial and reportorial staffs. Per NPA, the 1989 JOA was approved by the Attorney General in 1990, thereby conferring immunity from the antitrust law prohibitions upon the JOA. The term of this JOA was 50 years.

Disagreements subsequently arose regarding the 1989 JOA; these led to the respective publishers of the two newspapers to agree to an "Amended and Restated" JOA in 2005, which continued the 50-year agreement term of the 1989 JOA. Under the 2005 JOA, the two newspapers retained their editorial autonomy, but changes were made in the distribution, whereby the Las Vegas Sun became a daily insert to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The economic arrangements were also changed from a straight percentage-based profit split to a formula based upon earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.

After five years of litigation, the parties have yet to resolve core disagreements over whether the 2005 JOA was a separate agreement or merely an amendment to the 1989 JOA and also whether the JOA required approval of the U.S. Attorney General (AG). On March 31, 2024, the court partially granted competing motions for summary judgment allowing some RJ Nevada common law counterclaims to proceed.

On April 10, 2024, the RJ filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit challenging that portion of the court’s March 31, 2024 order determining that the Newspaper Preservation Act (NPA) did not require the Sun or the RJ to obtain the signature of the United States Attorney General on their 2005 Amendment to their Joint Operating Arrangement (JOA). The Sun also filed a parallel motion, still pending, for partial reconsideration.

The RJ asked the court to stay this case pending resolution of a Ninth Circuit appeal.

Motion to dissolve. The court first ordered that the RJ’s unopposed motion to dissolve the 2019 stipulated preliminary injunction would be granted.

Injunctive relief. The court next granted the Sun’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief in part. The RJ was enjoined from ceasing to print or distribute the Sun.

This court stressed that such limited prohibitory relief preserves the core status quo in order to prevent irreparable harm, while the parties fully brief and the court adjudicates the Sun’s motion to amend the complaint, the full preliminary-injunction request, and any other pending motions. The court did not grant the Sun’s requests for mandatory relief.

The court balanced the factors under Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. that a plaintiff must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm if preliminary relief is not granted, (3) that the balance of equities is in their favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. The court determined that as to the first factor, “there is at minimum a serious question on the merits of the Sun’s claims that the RJ willfully acquired and maintained its dominant market position through the alleged anticompetitive acts, causing injury.”

The court also found that the Sun has shown a likelihood of irreparable harm if interim injunctive relief is not granted. Wrote the court, “Stopping the printing and distribution of the Sun would cause the Sun to suffer immediate and intangible harms” in the form of “loss of staff and ability to recruit new employees… loss of readership and visibility, and loss of goodwill.” The court also concluded that the balance of equities weighed in favor of the Sun.

As to the public interest, the court indicated that the parties agree that in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief, the Sun would no longer be printed. The court highlighted that public policy favors preserving local newspapers. The court concluded that the public interest weighs heavily in favor of maintaining two competing editorial voices in the relevant market, especially insofar as the failure to do so now may lead to irreversible harms and foreclose the court’s later ability to consider injunctive relief if the Sun prevails at trial.

The Case is No. 2:19-cv-01667-ART-MDC.

Judge: Traum, A.

Attorneys: James J. Pisanelli (Pisanelli Bice PLLC) for Las Vegas Sun, Inc. Amy Marshall Gallegos (Jenner & Block LLP) for Sheldon Adelson.

Companies: Las Vegas Sun, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust NevadaNews GCNNews