From Doe v. Hill, decided today by D.C. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, joined by Judges Neomi Rao and Judith Rogers:
Dr. Doe challenges the constitutionality of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's [statutory] ban on hiring those who have been convicted of a felony. {Dr. Doe was convicted of two Ohio felonies when he was a young man in the early 1990s. Since then, Dr. Doe has lived a law-abiding life, obtained a PhD, and become a federal public servant with a security clearance. In 2009, he applied for and received a pardon from the Ohio governor, and his felony convictions were sealed by an Ohio court.} …
Because federal court proceedings are presumptively open and transparent, proceeding under a pseudonym is rarely granted. {Civil complaints filed in federal court must "name all the parties[,]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), and the suit must be prosecuted in "the name of the real party in interest," id. 17(a)(1).} Although Dr. Doe has a legitimate privacy interest in his sealed felony convictions, that interest is insufficient in this case to overcome the strong presumption against pseudonymous litigation….
This presumption is grounded in "the 'customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.'" We generally require "parties to a lawsuit [to] openly identify themselves … to protect[] the public's legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including the identities of the parties."
Requiring parties to litigate under their real names serves important values. Accurate party names allow citizens to evaluate the nature of the claims raised and the interests at stake, to assess "the real-world aftermath of a suit," and to determine for themselves whether "justice was done." Knowing the identity of parties also makes it easier for citizens to investigate abuses of the judicial process like judicial conflicts of interest and ex parte contacts, and it promotes the appearance of fairness. "Secrecy breeds suspicion[,]" and so "[s]ome may believe that a party's name was masked as a means of suppressing inconvenient facts and that the court was either asleep at the wheel or complicit in the cover up."
