From today's First Circuit opinion in Doe v. Smith, decided by "Roe, Circuit Judge," the footnote accompanying the Judge Roe notation (the panel was Judges O. Rogeriee Thompson, joined by Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Joshua Dunlap):
Just kidding—Judge Thompson authoring here.
But wouldn't it raise eyebrows if the parties and the public didn't know who was deciding the case? Thankfully, even if the panel opted to publish a per curium opinion so that the identity of the authorizing judge was not disclosed, we've still got all our names on the cover page to let the public know the judicial arbiters.
As you'll see throughout today's opinion, we believe our precedent makes paramount the principle of transparency as a bulwark of the effectiveness of our judicial system and the public's trust in it. As Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger once said, "People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing." And increased secrecy in the courts has not gone unnoticed. In the view of one recent New York Times article, "[s]ecrecy in lawsuits has 'run amok'" in federal courts, and studies show that "judges are not doing enough to protect the public interest in openness." If true, some would view this as troubling. So putting spotlight on the problem via a creative little formatting tweak in our opening line is an easy thing we can do to remind the public of the historical scaffolding that undergirds our judicial framework of transparency and public access.
All that's to say: that eye-grabbing opener isn't just for show but rather, a preview of what we think today's case highlights, and more importantly, legally demands.
And some excerpts from the text of the (longish) opinion:
