State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Bloom, 2024 Ohio 5029

Background

A 13‑year‑old (J.L.) was tried in Hamilton County juvenile court for felonious assault; Judge Kari L. Bloom found him not delinquent.
Under R.C. 2151.356(B)(1)(d) the court immediately sealed the juvenile‑delinquency records without a hearing.
Months later J.L. was killed; the Cincinnati Enquirer requested the transcript of the earlier juvenile trial and Judge Bloom denied the request, citing the mandatory sealing statute.
The Enquirer sued in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking writs of mandamus and prohibition, arguing R.C. 2151.356 violates the Ohio Constitution’s open‑courts clause by mandating blanket sealing without individualized balancing.
The Ohio Supreme Court held the open‑courts provision independently protects a presumptive public right of access to juvenile delinquency proceedings and that mandatory sealing under R.C. 2151.356 is unconstitutional absent individualized findings; the Court granted the requested writs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Ohio Const. art. I, § 16 (“All courts shall be open”) apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings?	Yes — the clause independently creates a presumption of public access that extends to juvenile delinquency proceedings.	No — prior Ohio precedent (T.R., Geauga) treated juvenile proceedings as outside or limited under the open‑courts presumption and tied analysis to the First Amendment.	Yes. The Court held art. I, § 16 applies; juvenile delinquency proceedings carry a presumption of public access and require individualized balancing before closure.
Is R.C. 2151.356(B)(1)(d)’s mandatory sealing constitutional?	Unconstitutional — it mandates blanket sealing and forecloses any individualized balancing of public access versus juvenile privacy.	Constitutional — legislature properly balanced interests and the statute authorizes sealing; Judge Bloom acted under statute.	Unconstitutional as applied: the statute may not be enforced without individualized findings balancing the juvenile’s privacy against the public’s right of access.
Should the Court overrule/limit T.R. and Geauga which had applied federal First Amendment tests?	The Court should interpret the Ohio open‑courts clause independently and not be bound to lockstep federal First Amendment tests.	The T.R./Geauga approach and stare decisis counsel against overruling; the federal tests are appropriate analogues.	The Court rejected the lockstep approach and clarified that Ohio’s open‑courts provision must be interpreted on its own terms.
Remedy: Should the transcript be released and the sealing order enjoined?	Yes — J.L. is deceased so his privacy interest is absent; mandamus and prohibition should issue to unseal and bar enforcement of the sealing order.	No — Judge Bloom acted under an unambiguous statute requiring sealing.	Writs granted: mandamus ordering production of the transcript and prohibition preventing enforcement of the sealing order.

Key Cases Cited

In re T.R., 52 Ohio St.3d 6 (1990) (adopted federal Press‑Enterprise test and held juvenile proceedings not presumptively open under same standard)
State ex rel. Scripps Howard Broad. Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div., 73 Ohio St.3d 19 (1995) (applied juvenile‑court balancing before denying transcript access)
State ex rel. The Repository v. Unger, 28 Ohio St.3d 418 (1986) (recognized public right to observe administration of justice and presumption of openness)
E.W. Scripps Co. v. Fulton, 100 Ohio App. 157 (8th Dist. 1955) (discussion of historical origins and public access)
Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (federal "experience and logic" test for qualified First Amendment access)
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (public trial right rooted in history and tradition)
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) (public access and its relation to functioning of judicial process)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Second Dist. Court of Appeals, 65 Ohio St.3d 378 (1992) (court records and open‑courts requirement; limited disclosure permitted)