New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Authority
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14768
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- NYCTA administers Rules for transit users; TAB handles violations with hearings and civil penalties up to $100.
- Citations can be Criminal Court or TAB; TAB hearings are in-person with witnesses, exhibits, and potential appeals.
- TAB access policy bars observers where respondent objects; policy written in 2009, but practiced previously as unwritten.
- NYCLU sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First Amendment right of access to TAB proceedings was violated.
- District court granted preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring openness; NYCTA appealed arguing no presumption of access for administrative adjudicatory forums.
- TAB records are exempt from FOIL; TAB proceedings resemble court-like adjudication but with limited discovery and different evidentiary rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TAB hearings are subject to a First Amendment right of access. | NYCLU asserts qualified First Amendment right to observe TAB hearings. | NYCTA contends administrative adjudications lack a presumptive right of access. | TAB hearings carry a qualified First Amendment right of access. |
| Whether NYCLU has standing to challenge TAB access policy. | NYCLU has organizational standing to vindicate its mission and observed injuries. | NYCLU must show individual member standing or representational basis. | NYCLU has organizational standing; injuries to its mission and ability to observe suffice. |
| Whether the TAB access policy meets strict scrutiny or applicable closing standards. | Policy arbitrarily bars observers without narrowly tailored findings. | Policy aims to prevent chilling effects and maintain order; closure justified as needed. | Policy violates First Amendment; any closure must be narrowly tailored with on-record findings. |
| Whether the experience and logic test applies to administrative adjudicatory proceedings like TAB. | Richmond Newspapers framework applies to TAB as a quasi-judicial forum. | Administrative proceedings may be treated differently from courts; openness not guaranteed. | Experience and logic prongs apply; TAB is subject to presumptive public access. |
| What standard governs closure when justified. | Closure should be case-by-case with on-record, narrowly tailored findings. | Closure mechanism is flexible or non-specific. | Closure requires overriding interest, narrow tailoring, alternatives, and on-record findings (Williams framework). |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (First Amendment right to attend trials; privacy and public access ethics)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (case-specific public access in preliminary hearings; case-by-case approach)
- Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (experience and logic test for access to preliminary hearings)
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979) (Sixth Amendment/public access distinction; public trial vs. public observers)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (administrative adjudicators functionally resemble judges; openness considerations)
- Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (1960) (adjudication within agency frameworks; importance of procedures)