United States v. James Allen, II, 34 F.4th 789

In July 2020 James Allen was arrested after police found him in a stolen car and an inventory search uncovered a loaded AR-15; he was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
During the COVID‑19 pandemic, the district judge prohibited public in‑person attendance at Allen’s suppression hearing and trial and permitted only an internet audio stream; the court denied a request for video streaming.
The district court treated audio access as a partial closure but found an overriding public‑health interest in limiting courthouse occupancy and concluded audio was constitutionally adequate.
Allen objected that audio streaming is not an adequate substitute for visual public access and proposed video streaming or limited in‑court spectators as less restrictive alternatives.
The trial proceeded under the court’s COVID protocols, Allen was convicted and sentenced, and he appealed the Sixth Amendment public‑trial claim; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the claim de novo.

Issue	Allen's Argument	District Court/Government Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of the public (audio‑only access) was a total or partial closure	The audio‑only rule effectively closed the courtroom to the public (total closure)	Court treated it as a partial closure	Ninth Circuit: it was a total closure (all persons other than participants excluded)
Whether the total closure was justified and narrowly tailored to the government’s COVID‑related interests	Audio is an inadequate substitute; video streaming or limited in‑person attendance could protect health while preserving public‑trial rights	Limiting courthouse occupancy was a compelling interest; audio sufficed; video risks unauthorized recording and does not reach everyone	Acknowledged COVID as compelling but held the order was not narrowly tailored; other courts used less restrictive visual access and the district court failed to consider reasonable alternatives
Appropriate remedy for a Sixth Amendment public‑trial violation	New public suppression hearing and, if necessary, a new trial	Argued closure was justified so no new proceedings needed	Remedy: conviction vacated; remanded for a new suppression hearing and a new trial

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (public trial right rooted in common law and First Amendment interests)
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (secret or closed trials undermine public‑trial guarantees; transcripts are inadequate)
Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (public observation promotes public confidence and accountability)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (closure requires overriding interest and narrow tailoring; remedy principles)
McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (narrow tailoring requires consideration of less intrusive alternatives and practices in other jurisdictions)
Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (comparison to other institutions’ practices informs narrow‑tailoring analysis)
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (courts must sua sponte consider alternatives to closure)
United States v. Rivera, 682 F.3d 1223 (definition and treatment of total courtroom closure)
United States v. Yazzie, 743 F.3d 1278 (distinguishing partial vs. total closures and tailoring requirements)