Hearst Newspapers, LLC v. Cardenas-Guillen, 641 F.3d 168

Cardenas-Guillen, Gulf Cartel leader, is extradited to the United States and charged with conspiracy to distribute large quantities of marijuana and cocaine, among other offenses.
The government sought to transfer venue from Brownsville, Texas, to Houston for safety considerations, and the district court granted the transfer.
Filings in the case were largely under seal, and Hearst Newspapers (Houston Chronicle) alleged sealing procedures were improper.
On February 18, 2010, the government moved to close Cardenas-Guillen’s sentencing hearing and to deny public notice; the district court granted the motion in a sealed order, stating it would unseal after sentencing.
The sentencing hearing was secretly scheduled for February 24, 2010; a Chronicle reporter later discovered the closed proceeding and sought access.
During the hearing, the court proceeded in a sealed, closed manner; after the hearing, the Chronicle’s motion to open or receive notice was denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the press/public have a First Amendment right of access to sentencing hearings.	Cardenas-Guillen; Chronicle asserts open proceedings under First Amendment.	Government asserts no such right or that compelling security concerns justify closed proceedings.	Yes; there is a First Amendment right of access to sentencing hearings.
Whether notice and an opportunity to be heard must precede closure of a sentencing hearing.	Chronicle contends closure without notice violates due process and First Amendment principles.	Government argues no hearing needed due to security concerns and that Chronicle had some consideration via prior filings.	Notice and an opportunity to be heard are required before closure.
Whether the district court's failure to provide notice/opportunity to be heard warrants reversal of the closure order.	District court failed to follow case-by-case closure procedures and thus violated First Amendment rights.	Court asserts any consideration via Chronicle’s prior motions suffices and security concerns can justify non-notice.	Yes; reversal is required because proper procedures were not followed.

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (foundation for openness and case-by-case closure)
Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (two-part test for access to criminal proceedings)
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 606 (1982) (open trials as baseline for public access)
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (public access as a check on judicial process)
Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2005) (recognizes open sentencing proceedings)
United States v. Santarelli, 729 F.2d 1388 (11th Cir. 1984) (public has right to see and hear sentencing proceedings)
In re Washington Post Co., 807 F.2d 389 (2d Cir. 1986) (open proceedings and related documents; case-by-case closure)
Criden, 675 F.2d 550 (3d Cir. 1982) (public must be given notice and opportunity to object to closure)
Edwards, No citation provided in excerpt (1984) (due process considerations in open proceedings)