老澳门开奖结果

In a partial victory for the public鈥檚 right to access and scrutinize court proceedings, a federal judge recently made public most of two previously sealed opinions authorizing gag orders on Twitter and Yahoo to prevent the companies from disclosing grand jury subpoenas demanding some of their subscribers鈥� records.

In a democracy governed by the rule of law, we cannot allow our courts to resolve controversial legal questions about executive power and the constitutional rights of citizens in secret. And yet that is what the government wanted a court to do in this case.

This case began when the government requested gag orders from a magistrate judge, attempting to bar Twitter and Yahoo from informing their customers about certain grand jury subpoenas seeking those customers鈥� information. The magistrate judge pushed back on the government, inviting and to weigh in and the government to make its legal arguments鈥攂ut not any sensitive facts鈥攑ublic. The government appealed the magistrate鈥檚 orders to a district court, where the judge, while recognizing that its opinions address several important legal issues, ordered the appeals sealed because they related to a grand jury investigation.

The 老澳门开奖结果 filed a motion seeking to assert the public's right to open court proceedings and, in particular, to the legal arguments advanced by the government in its attempt to obtain gag orders on Internet companies receiving subpoenas for their customers鈥� records. The judge ultimately agreed with the government, issuing two sealed opinions authorizing the government鈥檚 requested gag orders. The 老澳门开奖结果 filed a second motion to unseal these opinions and the accompanying orders. We argued:

Because the judiciary's very legitimacy stems from its issuance of reasoned decisions, documents authored or generated by a court, such as court orders, have long been considered core judicial records subject to the most stringent requirements of public access. Because courts determine what the law means鈥攁nd therefore what the law is鈥攖he societal need for access to judicial decisions is paramount.

Last week, we participated in a sealed hearing on this issue. In response to sealed arguments made in our motion and at the sealed hearing, the judge ordered his two opinions unsealed. Although he allowed the government to redact information relating to its investigation, the government redacted parts of only a single sentence in each opinion. The rest of the opinions explained the court鈥檚 ruling on several important and unsettled legal issues, such as the proper standard of review to be applied to the magistrate judge鈥檚 decisions, the participation of Internet service providers in gag order proceedings, and the government鈥檚 statutory authority for its requested gag orders. Those important rulings would never have seen the light of day without the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 intervention.

This shows, once again, that routine sealing of judicial opinions is both unnecessary and inappropriate. Sensible redaction鈥攚hich enables crucial public scrutiny of judicial decisions without compromising government investigations鈥攕hould be the rule. That is especially the case where (as here) courts must resolve controversial legal questions.

Of course, just unsealing an opinion is not enough. The 老澳门开奖结果 sought the publication of these opinions to learn why a federal magistrate judge had expressed concern about the government鈥檚 legal arguments. Troublingly, the unsealed opinions do not answer that question. The opinions offered neither an analysis of the facts nor a response to the legal questions raised by the magistrate judge. Our constitutional rights are at risk when the government silences tech companies without meaningful, public explanation, from either the government or the court issuing the gag orders. Nonetheless, the public filing of the judge鈥檚 opinions is an important first step in allowing the public to do this type of analysis.

The court has not yet acted on the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 motion to unseal the government鈥檚 original requests for these gag orders, or its appeals from the magistrate judge鈥檚 orders inviting Yahoo and Twitter to file legal briefs on those requests.