From yesterday's order in Abrego Garcia v. Noem by Judge Paula Xinis (D. Md.):
The Press Movants rightly contend that, at common law, the public enjoys a presumptive right to access court records, overcome only when outweighed by competing interests. The First Amendment, too, accords the public access, unless there has been a showing of "compelling governmental interest, and only if the denial is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." The right to public access of court records remains critical to promoting "trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of fairness." Thus, before allowing records to remain sealed the Court must (1) give the public a reasonable opportunity to be heard; (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing such as redactions; and (3) explain publicly and with specificity its decision to seal some or all of the challenged documents.
Defendants oppose unsealing on two grounds. Neither withstand scrutiny. First, Defendants wrongly cast all challenged filings as "discovery materials" which have not "historically been open to the press and public." They then contend, essentially, that no good can come to the case by affording the public access to "discovery."
At best, the only "discovery" potentially subject to disclosure are the attachments at ECF No. 98-1 and 98-2 [Defendants' objections and responses to plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests for production]. But these documents had already been filed on the open record [on April 22] where they remained before the Court had been asked to seal them during the April 23, 2025 hearing, and without the benefit of full briefing and consideration. However, upon consideration of the Press Movants' position, the Court recognizes that judges simply "do not have the power, even were we of the mind to use it if we had, to make what has thus become public private again," Thus, the Court will unseal those documents.
Defendants next contend that continued sealing is necessary to "protect[ ] national security" and "prevent[ ] the dissemination of sensitive information." They relatedly contend that redaction is practically unavailable because "it is unclear that the sensitive information could readily be disentangled from non-sensitive information such that redactions would be a feasible less restrictive approach to protecting the sensitive information."
