New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Authority
684 F.3d 286
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- NYCTA administers Rules of Conduct for transit users; police may issue citations for TAB or Criminal Court.
- TAB proceedings are in-person hearings overseen by TAB hearing officers; some forums are open to the public unless barred by consent.
- NYCLU sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming TAB access policy violates First Amendment right of access to government proceedings; district court grants injunction.
- TAB access policy requires respondent consent twice for observers; observers barred if respondent objects; policy written March 2009 but practiced for years as unwritten policy.
- TAB has quasi-court powers (subpoenas, penalties, appeals) but differs from courts in evidentiary rules and FOIL exemptions; TAB records are exempt from FOIL.
- NYCLU established organizational injury from exclusion of observers, demonstrating standing to challenge the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TAB hearings are subject to a First Amendment right of access | NYCLU asserts a qualified right of access to TAB hearings. | NYCTA contends no such right applies to administrative adjudications. | TAB hearings are subject to a First Amendment right of access. |
| Whether NYCLU has standing to challenge the policy | NYCLU suffers injury from exclusion of observers and acts to vindicate its own interests. | NYCLU lacks standing due to lack of individual member identification. | NYCLU has organizational standing to challenge the policy. |
| What standard governs closure of TAB hearings under the First Amendment | Closure requires case-specific on-the-record findings and narrowly tailored rationale. | Broad authority to close when necessary to protect interests. | TAB policy violates the First Amendment; closures must meet four-factor test with on-record findings and narrow tailoring. |
| Applicability of the experience-and-logic test to administrative proceedings | Richmond Newspapers framework applies to TAB as an administrative adjudicatory forum. | Administration proceedings may be exempt from presumption of openness. | Experience-and-logic test applies; TAB is presumptively open to public access. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) ( First Amendment right of access to trials implicit; openness promotes accountability)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (case-specific openness for preliminary hearings; public access enhances fairness)
- Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (experience-and-logic test for applying access to non-trial proceedings)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (U.S. 1982) (public access supports accountability and democratic governance)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (adjudicatory process shares characteristics with judicial process)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (closure standards for trials; equal framework for First and Sixth Amendment analysis)
- El Vocero de Puerto Rico v. Puerto Rico, 508 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1993) (case rejecting automatic closure; requires case-by-case justification)
- North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Ashcroft, 308 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2002) (experience-and-logic test applied to administrative proceedings)
- Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2002) (presumption of access to public governmental proceedings in administrative context)
- Doe v. United States, 63 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 1995) (case-by-case basis for closure; on-record findings required)