Center for Constitutional Rights v. Lind
954 F. Supp. 2d 389
D. Maryland2013Background
- PFC Bradley E. Manning was court-martialed for alleged unauthorized disclosure of classified materials; the bench trial began June 3, 2013 at Fort Meade and was expected to last ~12 weeks.
- Plaintiffs (journalists and media organizations) sued federal and military officials under the First Amendment and mandamus seeking public access to court-martial documents, transcripts, and off-the-record (R.C.M. 802) conferences; they moved for a preliminary injunction.
- Military judge Denise Lind had held the court-martial open except for classified sessions but declined to allow third-party copying/access to exhibits, directing FOIA or military records channels instead; plaintiffs pursued relief through military appeals; CAAF declined jurisdiction, leaving Article III review as the available forum.
- After suit was filed, the Army published hundreds of trial and pretrial documents (with FOIA-style redactions) to an online reading room, committed to rolling (1–2 business day) releases, and permitted private stenographers to produce unofficial, rapid transcripts for open sessions.
- The district court weighed plaintiffs’ access claims against Councilman abstention principles (deference to military tribunals) and the Winter preliminary-injunction factors, considering whether plaintiffs showed likelihood of success and irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article III courts may adjudicate public-access claims for a military court-martial after CAAF declined jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: Article III courts can and should vindicate First Amendment access rights; Manning’s rights aren’t implicated so Councilman abstention doesn’t bar review | Defendants: Comity/deference to military courts (Councilman) counsels against intervention in ongoing courts-martial | Court: Jurisdiction exists; Councilman abstention not dispositive here given plaintiffs’ exhaustion of military remedies and distinct First Amendment claim |
| Whether documents filed in a court-martial are subject to common-law and/or First Amendment access | Plaintiffs: Judicial records filed in connection with trial/proceedings are presumptively accessible under common law and, where experience and logic support, under the First Amendment | Defendants: Not all filings are judicial records; military FOIA-based release process and different decisionmakers suffice; First Amendment access to military court documents is unresolved | Court: Recognized a qualified right of access exists but emphasized document-by-document analysis; did not grant preliminary relief because Army’s rolling release reduced irreparable harm |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to contemporaneous transcripts or audio recordings (pretrial and trial) | Plaintiffs: Need contemporaneous transcripts/audio to ensure public’s meaningful access; transcripts are part of the public record | Defendants: Transcripts are not yet authenticated; resources limited; unofficial private transcription is available; no constitutional right to government-funded expedited transcripts during ongoing trial | Court: No likelihood of success for compelled contemporaneous transcripts or audio access; unofficial rapid transcripts and limited official expedited transcription for closed sessions mitigate need for injunction |
| Whether R.C.M. 802 off-the-record conferences and any failures to place rulings on the record violate public-access rights | Plaintiffs: Substantive matters have been decided off the record and not adequately memorialized; First Amendment requires access and judicial summary on the record; ask for reconstitution | Defendants: R.C.M. 802 permits conferences, in-chambers matters are common and permissible; Judge Lind committed to placing agreed-upon substantive resolutions on record; intrusion would disrupt trial | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show noncompliance or likelihood of success; off-the-record conferences consistent with precedent; no preliminary injunction warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (recognizes common-law presumptive access to judicial records and court supervisory authority over records)
- Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (plurality recognizing First Amendment right of public to attend criminal trials)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (establishes the "experience and logic" test for First Amendment access)
- Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1975) (articulates abstention/deference principles for Article III intervention in ongoing courts-martial)
- In re Washington Post Co., 807 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1986) (First Amendment right of access to documents filed in connection with plea hearings; framework for access analysis)
- In re Application of the United States for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), 707 F.3d 283 (4th Cir. 2013) (treats access-restricting orders as mandamus-type review; discusses right-of-access standards)
- In re Time Inc., 182 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 1999) (acknowledges trial courts’ duty to accommodate First Amendment access without disrupting trials)