We Should Very Much Trust The Able USDC Judge Paula Xinis Here -- But The Presumption Of Public Access Clearly Applies To this Matter.

We expect this motion will prevail -- and the government will have to explain why Mr. Abrego Garcia -- depsite a clear US Supreme Court order -- is not yet back in Baltimore.

Here is that fine memo of law -- and a bit of it:

. . .[F]ourteen news organizations that have reported on this case (the “Press Movants”), respectfully move to intervene in this matter for the limited purpose of seeking to unseal certain court records. The eyes of the public and all three branches of government are on this lawsuit: in the weeks since it was filed, the case has already been before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit (twice), the President has discussed it during a nationally televised interview and on social media, and members of Congress have traveled internationally to meet Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia and investigate the conditions of his detention. The case raises profound questions of separation of powers, civil liberties, and foreign relations. Such a case requires maximum transparency so that “the public [can] participate in and serve as a check upon” their government. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct., 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982). . . .

Two weeks ago, however, the parties began filing submissions in this matter under seal -- seemingly without requesting or receiving permission from the Court to do so. First, the parties jointly filed a sealed request for a conference with the Court (ECF No. 98). Then, the government filed a sealed motion (ECF No. 101), and Plaintiffs filed a sealed response (ECF No. 102). Finally, last week, the government filed another sealed motion (ECF No. 104), which was denied “[f]or the reasons stated on the record during today’s proceeding” (ECF No. 106), despite no hearing being noticed on the docket or appearing on the Court’s calendar. Moreover, while releasing a hearing transcript after the fact is not an adequate substitute for contemporaneous access, the Press Movants have been told that no public transcript of the hearing is even available.

The docket also skips over one entry (ECF No. 105) entirely, without any indication of what is missing or why. Not a single sealing motion or sealing order appears in the public record. . . .

This unexplained sealing of court records is especially concerning in such a closely watched case, because “[p]eople in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572 (1980). The Press Movants therefore request that the Court grant their limited request to intervene and promptly unseal these records. . . .

The federal law requires specific written submissions -- and an on the record hearing, before the people's right of full access. . . may be defeated. It is past time to hold those hearings, and bring Mr. Abrego Garcia home.

Separately (but along those same lines!), in "men in black" attire tomorrow, at 11:30 am sharp -- I'll appear in US District Court in Chicago on the 21^st floor, to hear oral arguments -- on the Evanston reparations ordinance (and Tom Fitton's preposterous challenge to it). We will live blog anything interesting, from the well.

I do expect a ruling from the bench dismissing Fitton and Judicial Watch. Jenner & Block will prevail, even if it takes a few days for the able Judge to issue a written opinion. Onward.

नमस्ते