Courthouse News Service v. Quinlan, 32f4th15

Maine SJC adopted electronic filing rules (RECS) Aug 21, 2020; the initial (Former RECS) barred public access to e-filed civil complaints until three business days after clerk acceptance and proof of service on at least one defendant, creating potential delays of up to 90 days.
Plaintiffs (several Maine newspapers and Courthouse News Service) sued Feb 3, 2021 alleging the delay violated the First Amendment; SJC amended the rules in Feb 2021 (Operative RECS) to remove the explicit three-day-after-service wait.
Operative RECS make records public only after a court clerk processes and enters the submission into the electronic file; processing requires checks (signature, fees, envelope/summary, attorney bar number, formatting/upload). No deadline is specified for processing.
Plaintiffs alleged actual delays in Penobscot County Superior Court under the Former RECS and pleaded anticipated delays under the Operative RECS (citing an email estimating up to 24 business hours for processing), which they claim can translate into up to six calendar days.
District court held plaintiffs had a qualified First Amendment right of access but dismissed the amended complaint, concluding the Operative RECS were permissible time/place/manner restrictions; First Circuit vacated the dismissal, holding plaintiffs plausibly pleaded a constitutional violation and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Operative RECS violate First Amendment right to access newly filed civil complaints	RECS impose actual/consequential delays (up to several days) that infringe the qualified public right of access	Any administrative delay is minimal/negligible and serves important court interests	Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation; dismissal was error — case remanded for factual development
When right of access attaches (filing vs. clerk processing)	Right attaches at filing (or at least sufficiently early) so delays after submission are subject to scrutiny	Right does not attach until a rules-compliant complaint is processed and entered	Court assumed some scrutiny applies and resolved only that claimed processing delays must survive review; did not decide precise attachment point
Standard of review (strict scrutiny vs. time/place/manner)	Strict scrutiny applies to closures of public access	Intermediate TPM scrutiny applies	Court avoided choosing; found plaintiffs plausibly stated a claim even under the less demanding TPM/intermediate scrutiny
Sufficiency of pleading at motion-to-dismiss stage	Allegations (emails, reported delays, filings unseen) suffice to show consequential delay	Defendants' sworn declaration and operational facts would rebut delay allegations	At pleading stage plaintiffs’ factual allegations must be credited; court cannot resolve factual disputes on motion to dismiss

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (establishes qualified First Amendment right of public access to certain judicial proceedings and documents)
Press-Enterprise Corp. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (articulates strict scrutiny for closure of proceedings to the public)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (time, place, and manner restriction test for content-neutral regulations)
In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (mandates specific factual findings when balancing access against countervailing interests)
Cutting v. City of Portland, 802 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2015) (applies TPM/intermediate scrutiny framework in First Circuit)
Doe v. Pawtucket Sch. Dep't, 969 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020) (limits consideration of extra-record factual assertions at motion-to-dismiss stage)
Courthouse News Serv. v. Brown, 908 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2018) (discusses abstention and access issues in parallel litigation)