These are after all, the people's public courts. Mr. Abrego Garcia's is a very newsworthy case, now -- as Noem / Rubio / Trump all try to detain him in Nashville -- after wrongfully sending him to an El Salvadorian hellhole for two months. We are entitled to know what the courts do in our names.
And controlling US Supreme Court precedents require federal judges (who purport to offer exceptions to that general rule of public disclosures) to enter written, reasoned, on-the-record judicial opinions -- before sealing large portions of any given case. So -- we will send a version of the below later tonight (again!) -- asking after at least seven sealed filings (which are especially problematic given that he was held in virtual secrecy for about 60 days at a black site):
. . .[Addressed to USDC Presiding Judge USDC, TNMD]
. . .My [entirely pro bono] clients recognize that the court has myriad other demands on its time and limited staffing resources, but absent a documented showing of unreasonable administrative burdens (and a two page order, published at the same moment, makes it plain that this is no administrative burden!), the public’s right to contemporaneous access to judicial records cannot be overcome. See, e.g., Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, No. CV 11-08083 SJO (FFMx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105197, at *62 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2016) (“to the extent Planet might argue that such a practice would have been cost-prohibitive or unduly labor intensive, she has not quantified the cost. . . nor has she detailed the additional labor that would have been required). . . .
Absent such evidence, the Court cannot ‘articulate facts demonstrating an administrative burden sufficient to deny access.’”) (citation omitted), aff’ in part rev’d in part, 947 F.3d 581, 597 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that “Ventura County’s no-access-before-process policy bears no real relationship to the County’s legitimate administrative concerns about. . . efficient court administration”); see also United States v. Valenti, 987 F.2d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding unconstitutional the district court’s maintenance of a dual-docketing system, where certain docket entries were visible only to the parties, and expressly rejecting the argument that unsealing would bind the court to a “formal procedure that is unduly burdensome”).
Specifically, a arraignment / detention hearing and apparently, at least one or two orders, in this matter have been entered by the court just now (ECF Docs. Nos. 19, 22, 24, 27, 31, 32, 34 and 37, among others -- as of June 13, 2025) but each remains entirely invisible to the public. Of course, while redactions for trade or governmental secrets (and sensitive, personally identifying information or national security) would be normal, there has been no such effort made, on the part of the court -- to secure redacted copies for the public dockets. It seems court staff designated at least seven doucuments as wholly-sealed, or for “attorneys’ eyes” only.
Based on my review of the ECF record in this matter, it would seem no reasoned, on the record public written court order (or issued orally from your bench) has set forth the findings required by the First Amendment, prior to the removal of this judicial document from the record. See, e.g., Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990).
However, rather than waste more of the court’s resources and time, I have chosen (as a non-party member of the public, and at this point, non-intervenor) to simply write to you directly, and copy counsel for both sides on this. I am hopeful the lawyers will prepare and file a series of redacted versions (perhaps on a rolling basis -- to lighten the load), but all as required by long-standing, uncontroverted black letter First Amendment law.
To be clear, this need not (and perhaps should not) require my filing as an intervenor, in your courtroom -- to be placed on any public docket, as it sensibly ought to be resolved without need for appearances in the record, on my clients’ behalf. . . .
Please prepare and publish redacted versions of Documents Nos. 19, 22, 24, 27, 31, 32, 34 and 37, before next Monday, June 23, 2025.
Kind regards. . .
/s/. . . .
Now you know -- but it is likely that a decision of some sort was made today -- down in Music City, about whether Mr. Abrego Garcia will be free on bail, and on what conditions those might be. Onward. resolutely -- unless the idea is to put him and his family into the federal protective custody / identity reassignment process, due to threats to his family by MAGA nuts. . . there would be scant (legitimate, lawful) reason why Noem needs to keep her screw ups. . . secret. Damn.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment