The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a mother and her attorneys who were subjected to a gag order for talking to the media about her child custody battle, in which she accused the father of sexual abuse of the child.

The court granted allowance of appeal in S.B. v. S.S. on Sept. 11. Previously, the Superior Court held that the gag order was valid because it served the privacy interests of the child at issue.

At the Supreme Court level, the justices will consider the question: "In a child custody case, did the Pennsylvania Superior Court err in affirming the gag order in violation of petitioners' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution when the order precluded the parent and attorneys from speaking publicly about the case in a manner that would identify the child involved?"

According to Superior Court Judge Mary Murray's Dec. 24, 2018 opinion, a story about the case appeared in the Pittsburgh City Paper after attorney Richard Ducote held a press conference. That press conference came after a judge granted sole custody to the father, who the mother claimed was sexually abusive toward the child.

A gag order followed, which said in part, "Richard Ducote, Esquire; and Victoria McIntyre shall NOT direct or encourage third parties to speak publicly or communicate about this case including, but not limited to, print and broadcast media, on-line or web-based communications, or inviting the public to view existing on-line or web-based publications."

The Superior Court upheld the order, ruling that it did not violate the mother's free speech rights. It also held that the order was made to protect the welfare of the child.

"Instantly, our careful review of the gag order reveals that the order's proscription is limited to 'any information that would identify or tend to identify the child,'" Murray wrote. "As written, therefore, the order is not concerned with the content of mother and her attorneys' speech, but instead, with the target of the speech, namely, child, a juvenile whose identity and privacy the court seeks to protect. It is the identification of child that triggers the application of the gag order. Accordingly, we reject mother's claim that the order is a content-based restriction on speech and conclude, rather, that the order is content-neutral."

Ducote said the case could have a broader impact.

"We're very happy and expected the Supreme Court to take the case," he said. "When you read the Superior Court's opinion, I thought it was pretty shocking that such an unbridled ban on the exercise of free speech could be sanctioned. … We're optimistic tat well win this. It's important not just for our client but for other parents around the county who are in this situation."

The father's attorney, Elisabeth Pride of Pride Law in Pittsburgh, also did not return a call.