Judge Chittum ruled that in light of recent events the statute clearly required that prior criminal case file be unsealed.
A D.C. federal judge has issued a groundbreaking Freedom of Information Act ruling in favor of the Washington Post, agreeing that the public has a "strong interest” in learning the names of retired U.S. military personnel who go to work for foreign governments and how much they get paid.
Florida Federal Court Releases Redacted Warrant Affidavit in Unprecedented Search of Former President Trump’s Florida ResidenceCharles D. Tobin and Elizabeth Seidlin-Bernstein
The news organizations argued that, even in the middle of an investigation and before any indictment, a search warrant affidavit is a judicial record to which the presumption of public access attaches.
The ruling bowls over text and precedent and is a potential disaster for government transparency.
The court’s holding that the reporter was entitled to bring his lawsuit challenging the non-response has far-reaching consequences and has been hailed as a major victory for transparency in California.
After the troubling death of 22-month-old Rashid Bryant, a coalition of media companies and access advocates sued DCF when the agency refused to release its case file on the toddler.
While this decision was an indelible win for government transparency, The Intercept’s ongoing, costly fight to access the records at issue should serve as a cautionary tale to news organizations considering bringing similar cases.
A recent spate of high-profile cases, across the country, demonstrate that many judges, in both state and federal courts, are of the view that there is no presumption of public access to the names of seated jurors, not only at the outset of a trial, but even post-verdict.
Affirming its well-established precedent on access to judicial records, the Eleventh Circuit recently upheld a district court’s order unsealing internal communications obtained during discovery and filed in connection with a motion for a preliminary injunction.
At issue in the appeal were the names, investigated facts, and explanation of Mueller’s declination decisions for two groups of people: those investigated for campaign finance and computer intrusion offenses, and those investigated for making false statements to the government in the course of the investigation.