There was a status conference -- with updated status reports, from all sides in this litigation -- on June 10, 2025.
Without making any of the required on record findings, Chief Judge Moses has made the whole she-bang. . . attorneys' eyes only. [Wow -- that is likely because what IS happening. . . will embarrass MAGA Gov. Abbott, down there.] But clearly, the litigation is not being tossed, on Tangerine say-so. There are private plaintiffs, continuing in their own names -- after being. . . lacerated or worse -- on the savage barrier. Here's the bit we CAN see. . . but I may need to send in an on record filing (something like the green text, below) -- to Judge Moses, directly, explaining that even in dusty West Texas. . . "we the people" have the presumptive right to observe what our courts are doing. . . in our name.
. . .IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for DOCKET CALL / STATUS CONFERENCE in Courtroom 1, on the 2nd floor, U.S. Courthouse, 111 E. Broadway, Del Rio, TX, on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 at 11:00 AM.
All parties and counsel must appear at this hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2025. . . .
[Addressed to USDC Chief Judge Moses, USDC WDTX]
. . .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”).
Based on my review of the ECF record in this matter, it would seem no public court order -- whether in writing 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 redacted version, as required by long-standing, uncontroverted black letter First Amendment law (which applies, even -- perhaps surprisingly to you -- in the Western District of Texas).
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 a redacted version of Document No. 135, before Monday, June 23, 2025. Kind regards. . . . /s/
Now you know. Onward, resolutely.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment