access to courts

The Daily Report's Greg Land reports on an issue of first impression in Georgia: does the public have a First Amendment right to attend a plastic surgeon's disciplinary hearing? Dr. Nedra Dodds had her license to practice medicine suspended after two of her patients died following liposuction treatments. The doctor doesn't want a local TV station to cover the hearing before an administrative law judge. The doctor's attorney argues that the privacy of information about patients bars public disclosure of Georgia Composite Medical Board disciplinary hearing, while the station's attorney argues patient privacy is not a compelling state interest that outweighs the public interest in a judicial proceeding.
 

Lawyers for the Justice Department has moved to keep the public out of a court hearing on the practice of force feeding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, reports Politico's Josh Gerstein. Syrian Wa'el Dhiab has complained that the force-feeding procedures are too harsh.

The government's motion to seal the court hearing appears to be under seal too, Gerstein said. "'There is no reason to close the upcoming hearing, other than the government's intense desire to hide from public scrutiny the evidence we have managed to uncover over the past few months,' attorney Jon EIsenberg told POLITICO Saturday."

Tony Mauro, writing in Supreme Court Brief, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has no plans to provide wider access to the court. The Coalition of Court Transparency, a network of media and open-access organizations, had asked for broadcast of court proceedings or the same-day release of audio from oral transcripts, Mauro also reports.

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a petition of certiorari from the Delaware Court of Chancery to consider reinstating secret arbitrations in corporate litigation exceeding $1 million, The Legal Intelligencer's Jeff Mordock reports. Lower courts said the law violated the right of the public to access court proceedings.

Yale Law Professor Judith Resnik opined in the New York Times against Delaware's effort to fight against the growing market in private dispute resolution by allowing litigants to use Delaware's chancery judges for secret arbitrations if the businesses had at least $1 million at stake, paid $12,000 in filing fees and paid $6,000 per day: "The Delaware legislation is a dramatic example of rich litigants using their resources to close court systems that taxpayers support and constitutions require. But the problem goes beyond Delaware. To honor constitutional commitments that 'all courts shall be open,' the court should refuse the Delaware judges’ request, and Congress should restore rights to public courts for consumer and employment disputes." A split Third Circuit ruled against the constitutionality of the program, and the Delaware Court of Chancery is seeking certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Delaware Business Court Insider's Jeff Mordock reported this week on Leo E. Strine Jr.'s confirmation as the chief justice of the Delaware Supreme Court. While Delaware is a preferred forum for America's corporations, one thing that struck me about Jeff's coverage is that Strine said he plans to focus on family court, which is an often overlooked area of law: "'One of the things I never forget is how important Family Court is. The Justice of the Peace Court comes into contact with more Delaware residents than any other court. The challenge of delivering the high-quality justice our court has done with limited resources is a daunting one and I'm committed to giving my all to do that. My background has positioned me well to understand the challenges of my colleagues in the other courts."'

Strine also defended the Court of Chancery's confidential arbitration program against the argument that it violates the First Amendment. Delaware is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court in a last-ditch attempt to reinstate the program after the Third Circuit struck it down.

After the Third Circuit rejected the Delaware Court of Chancery from overseeing private arbitrations, Delaware has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review what some called "secret trials," Reuters reports. "The arbitration process was seen by Delaware attorneys as a key to boosting the attractiveness of the Court of Chancery," Reuters further reports. "It was also considered economically important to the state, as at least one company in an arbitration dispute had to be incorporated in Delaware."

The Miami Herald reports that the latest military hearings for Guantanamo detainees are going to be closed to the press. "Officials have not been able to explain why the Pentagon is unprepared to fulfill its transparency pledge. First Amendment attorney Dave Schulz said he had been seeking assurances from the Defense Department’s Office of General Counsel that reporters would be able to watch captives argue for their freedom since soon after the Pentagon published its 23-page PRB procedures in May 2012," the Herald further reports.
 

The Guardian has published an opinion piece arguing against allowing cameras in criminal courtrooms: Television "companies want into the criminal courts because that is where the drama is. Such exposure will put witnesses off, discourage victims even if their faces are not on screen and distort the behaviour of lawyers and judges. As for defendants, they risk being feasted upon by the media with a frenzy that will wholly discredit the system." However, airing proceedings in England's appellate courts is beneficial because "in our common law system, binding law is made in these highest courts as well as in parliament. So, while it may be dull to many, it is perfectly rational to have it available for public information."

A similar line is drawn in Pennsylvania, for example.