Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951

Press organizations (“Press Movants”) sought to intervene and unseal several court records and hearing transcripts in an immigration-related case.
Certain filings and hearings were previously sealed due to assertions of the state secrets privilege and the presence of potentially classified information.
The parties jointly requested a discovery conference, filed on the public docket; subsequent filings addressing discovery were filed under seal.
Defendants, including the Department of Homeland Security, invoked national security interests to keep specific documents and transcripts sealed.
The Court had to balance the public’s right of access to judicial records with government interests in safeguarding sensitive information.
Judge Paula Xinis granted in part and denied in part the motion to unseal, ordering some records be released, others redacted, and some to remain sealed pending further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Public right to access court records	Public enjoys presumptive right, must overcome by compelling counterinterest	Sealing is needed for national security and sensitive info	Unsealed most filings; allowed redactions for state secrets; some kept under seal
Applicability of state secrets privilege	Only specific info may be privileged/redactable	State secrets requires broad sealing, can't disentangle	Narrow redactions sufficient; blanket sealing overbroad
Access to hearing transcripts	Transcripts should be accessible with redactions	Transcripts have inseparable classified info	Partial release with redactions for April 30 hearing; April 23 transcript remains sealed
Sealing of discovery materials	Discovery under discussion was already public	Discovery not typically public	Pre-existing public filings cannot be made private again

Stone v. Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1988) (establishes right for public and press to intervene to unseal court records)
Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2014) (public’s right of access to court records requires specific findings and consideration of alternatives before sealing)
Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) (once information is public, court cannot make it private again)