Twitter Facebook Google Plus Pinterest Storify
Society of Professional Journalists
Improving and protecting journalism since 1909

Advertise with SPJ
Advertise with SPJ

News and More
Click to Expand Instantly

SPJ News
Events and Deadlines
SPJ Blogs
Quill Online
Journalist's Toolbox

Stay in Touch
Twitter Storify Facebook Google Plus
RSS Pinterest Pinterest Flickr

Open Doors: Accessing Government Records
FOI Basics
FOI and the Courts
FOI and Privacy
FOI and Your Life
FOI and Daily News Coverage
Red Flags
FOI A to Z
Purchase a Copy

Freedom of Information
Covering Prisons
Project Sunshine: Find FOI Help
Accessing Government Records
Shield Law Campaign
FOI Audit Tookit | PDF
Anti-SLAPP: Protect Free Speech
Official Secrets Act bill
FOI Groups
Annual FOI Reports
FOI Committee Roster

FOI FYI: SPJ’s FOI Committee Blog
Show why FOI matters
FOI Win in Georgia: Defamation Law Repealed
The flow of information: Reporting on water in the west

FOI Committee
This committee is the watchdog of press freedoms across the nation. It relies upon a network of volunteers in each state organized under Project Sunshine. These SPJ members are on the front lines for assaults to the First Amendment and when lawmakers attempt to restrict the public's access to documents and the government's business. The committee often is called upon to intervene in instances where the media is restricted.

Freedom of Information Committee Chair

Jonathan Anderson
Public issues investigative reporter
Marshfield News-Herald
Marshfield, Wisc.
Phone: 920-676-5399
Bio (click to expand) picture Jonathan Anderson is a public issues investigative reporter for the Marshfield News-Herald in Marshfield, Wisconsin. Before joining the News-Herald, in 2015, Jonathan was a reporter for a pair of newspapers in northern Wisconsin for nearly two years. He has held internships at the First Amendment Center, Wisconsin Law Journal, Wisconsin Public Radio and WISN-TV, and was also editor in chief of his college newspaper, the UWM Post.

Jonathan is an avid requester of public records, and his work in the FOI arena has also entailed advocacy and research. He has been the plaintiff in two lawsuits challenging improper government secrecy. He helped obtain a legal opinion from the Wisconsin attorney general that found University of Wisconsin System student government groups subject to the state’s open meetings law. His master’s thesis, “Resolving Public Records Disputes in Wisconsin: The Role of the Attorney General's Office,” investigated how the Wisconsin attorney general reviews and sometimes intervenes in access disputes. And he has volunteered for the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.

Home > Freedom of Information > Open Doors > FOI and the Courts

Mentor Match-up
Introduction | FOI Basics | FOI and the Courts | FOI and Privacy | FOI and Your Life
FOI and Daily News Coverage | Red Flags | FOI A to Z | Resources | Purchase a Copy

FOI and the Courts
Does the FOIA cover federal courts?
Is every trial and court proceeding open?
Can judges make court records secret?
Why aren’t recording devices allowed in federal courts?
What about state and local courts?
Can a reporter or the public challenge a judge's secrecy order?

Does the FOIA cover federal courts?

No. Federal courts are not covered by the FOIA. However, under the First Amendment the public and the news media have a right to attend trials and hearings in most cases.

Court files also are presumed to be open to the public, but not necessarily under the First Amendment. The right to inspect those files may be rooted in case law or court procedural rules. Federal courts themselves are not unanimous in where the right emanates from, although federal appellate courts have ruled in favor of the public’s right to have access to court files.

The FOIA also does not cover the Judicial Conference of the United States or the Administrative Office of United States Courts, which govern and provide administrative services to the federal court system. Meetings and records of these organizations are made public to the extent the judiciary sees fit to provide access.


Is every trial and court proceeding open?

No. Judges presiding over cases are often asked by the parties to close proceedings. However, because most proceedings are presumed to be public, a judge must conclude that closure is necessary to protect a “compelling government interest.” In other words, the judge must decide that openness will harm the parties and the only way to prevent the harm is to make the information secret.

Judges may order participants in a case – lawyers, law enforcement personnel, witnesses, litigants, etc. – not to discuss the case with non-participants outside of the courtroom. These orders, referred to as “gag orders,” may seriously restrict public access to information about the case. How far judges can go in barring public comment is an open question under federal case law, but judges have the power to impose limits on participants, but not on the media.

There is no public right of access to proceedings that traditionally have been secret, such as grand jury sessions.


Can judges make court records secret?

Judges also may be asked to seal court records in a given case. Again, the judge must determine that there is good cause for secrecy and must cite a compelling government interest before making records secret.

In 2001, the Judicial Conference ruled that the federal courts implement an electronic filing system in which most court documents will be filed and stored on computers.

Under this system, the public will have access over the Internet to federal court files to the same extent the files are available for review at the court clerk’s office. In other words, if you can walk into the clerk’s office and see a document, you will be able to see the same document through the Internet.

Initially, this rule will apply to civil, bankruptcy, tax and appeals cases, but not to criminal cases in the U.S. district courts.
(NOTE: Users must register for Web service.)


Why aren’t recording devices allowed in federal courts?

Although reporters can attend federal court proceedings and cover them, the visual media are barred from bringing their cameras and tape recorders into courtrooms. The media, Congress and some federal judges have advocated permitting electronic coverage, which is allowed on a limited basis in most states’ courts, but the federal courts are not yet open to the electronic media.

At this writing, Congress is considering a bill (S-986) to grant federal judges the discretion to open their courtrooms to cameras and recording devices. The bill also would instruct the Judicial Conference to draw up guidelines for the use of recording devices in federal courts.


What about state and local courts?

Only a few state FOI laws apply to the courts. However, state courts, like their federal counterparts, are required by the First Amendment to provide public access to most proceedings and, under similar principles, to most court records.

Grand jury sessions and other proceedings traditionally held behind closed doors, such as juvenile and adoption cases, are not public under the First Amendment. However, some states have statutes providing limited access.


Can a reporter or the public challenge a judge’s secrecy order?

Yes. It is important for the news media and the judge to understand that the public, including reporters, may challenge secrecy orders, even though they are not parties to the case over which the judge is presiding. (In legal terms, the public and media have “standing” as legitimate courtroom participants.)


Copyright © 1996-2015 Society of Professional Journalists. All Rights Reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center
3909 N. Meridian St.
Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789

Contact SPJ Headquarters
Employment Opportunities
Advertise with SPJ