Courthouse News Services v. Dorothy Brown
908 F.3d 1063
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Courthouse News Service (CNS) sues Cook County Clerk Dorothy Brown under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking an injunction to require instantaneous public release of newly e-filed civil complaints to the press at the moment of receipt rather than after clerical processing.
- Historically the Clerk’s Office printed and released filings same-day; since 2015 it withholds e-filings until an accept/reject processing step is complete and posts them online thereafter, producing typical delays of up to one business day for most filings.
- CNS argues the First Amendment creates a presumption of immediate press access to civil complaints; the Clerk concedes a qualified right of access but contends the presumption does not mandate instant release and that processing prevents disclosure of confidential information and complies with Illinois filing orders.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction ordering contemporaneous release of newly e-filed complaints; Clerk Brown appealed and obtained a stay pending appeal.
- The Seventh Circuit reverses, holding the district court should have abstained under principles of federalism, comity, and equity (Younger/O’Shea/Rizzo principles and circuit precedent) and remands with instructions to dismiss without prejudice, leaving state courts to address the timing issue first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the First Amendment requires immediate public release of e-filed civil complaints upon receipt | CNS: Press has a qualified First Amendment right of access that attaches upon receipt; delays (even one business day) unlawfully impair time-sensitive reporting | Brown: Right of access is qualified; the Accept/Reject processing requirement and modest delays are lawful and protect confidential info and compliance with state e-filing rules | Court did not reach constitutional timing question; instead held federal courts must abstain and let state courts address it first |
| Whether federal court should abstain from deciding this dispute now | CNS: Federal forum appropriate for novel First Amendment claim | Brown: Abstention required because relief would intrude on state court administration and conflict with state orders | Court: Abstention warranted under principles of Younger/O’Shea/Rizzo and circuit precedent; federal intrusion into state court operations inappropriate at this stage |
| Whether district court erred in issuing preliminary injunction | CNS: Injunction needed to prevent irreparable harm to news reporting | Brown: Balance of harms and public interest disfavors injunction given state interests and minimal delays | Court: District court abused discretion by not abstaining; injunction vacated and case dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether Seventh Circuit precedent compels ‘immediate and contemporaneous’ access | CNS relied on Grove Fresh and associated language | Brown: Grove Fresh not controlling for instantaneous access to all filings | Court: Grove Fresh informative on access but does not compel federal imposition of instant release on state courts; state courts should have first opportunity to interpret their procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (federal courts should avoid injunctions that amount to ongoing oversight of state judicial processes)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (federal courts must respect state institutions’ latitude in internal administration; injunctions altering internal procedures raise federalism concerns)
- SKS & Associates, Inc. v. Dart, 619 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2010) (abstention where federal relief would supervise state-court operations; comity and equity weigh against federal intervention)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (common-law and constitutional roots of public access to judicial records; courts supervise their own records)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (First Amendment protection for public and press access to criminal trials and the role of openness)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (Press-Enterprise II experience-and-logic test for qualified First Amendment access)
- Grove Fresh Distributors, Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1994) (language endorsing contemporaneous access to filings; informative but not dispositive here)
- Courthouse News Service v. Planet, 750 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2014) (contrasting Ninth Circuit decision refusing abstention and addressing First Amendment timing issue on the merits)