Opinion ID: 221342
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Logic of Public Access to TAB Hearings

Text: Our answer to the logic part of the inquiry is, again, guided by the logic of access to the Criminal Court, which has been well established. As with the experience prong, however, looking just to the TAB itself yields the same result. The logic prong of the inquiry essentially asks whether openness enhances the ability of the government proceeding to work properly and to fulfill its function. Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 8, 106 S.Ct. 2735. This inquiry requires an understanding of what the function of a particular process is and an evaluation of the role of openness in it. [13] Court trials, which serve both as a mechanism for judicial factfinding, [and] as the initial forum for legal decision making, Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 596, 100 S.Ct. 2814 (Brennan, J., concurring), have been held to depend on publicity as a check that enhance[s] the fairness of the trial itself, United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 126 (2d Cir.1995). TAB proceedings similarly serve an adjudicatory function that determines respondents' rights. As a proceeding that, like a trial, involves both factfinding and legal decision making, the TAB hearing is subject to the same dangers  whether willful or accidental  as a trial, dangers that can be reduced significantly by the kind of [p]ublic scrutiny ... [that] enhances the quality and safeguards the integrity of the factfinding process. Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 606, 102 S.Ct. 2613. Furthermore, in a TAB proceeding, individuals confront the power of their government to judge and penalize their actions; like a trial, it is a part of the general administration of justice that is central to government authority. Doe, 63 F.3d at 126. In this sense, like a trial, one of the TAB's functions is to maintain the public perception of government as a legitimate authority that satisfies the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system. Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 508, 104 S.Ct. 819. And it is this appearance of fairness that has been held to be enhance[d] by open access. Id. at 508, 509, 104 S.Ct. 819. Finally, because the TAB, like other administrative agencies, forms a part, albeit small, of a larger web of government authority, [f]ree access [to it] ... informs the populace of the workings of government and fosters more robust democratic debate, Doe, 63 F.3d at 126, thereby serv[ing] to insure that the individual citizen can effectively participate in and contribute to our republican system of self-government, Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 604, 102 S.Ct. 2613. The NYCTA has not argued that public access would not enhance the TAB's functioning in these ways. Rather, it suggests that the possibility that some respondents would be dissuaded from contesting their notices of violation in person suffices to outweigh any potential benefits of publicity. But far from showing that this danger is real, the NYCTA has offered no empirical support for th[is] claim. Id. at 609, 102 S.Ct. 2613. Like the Sixth Circuit, we do not believe speculation should form the basis for ... a ... restriction of the public's First Amendment rights. Detroit Free Press, 303 F.3d at 709. To the extent that a particular defendant or witness has a legitimate interest in excluding the public from a specific proceeding before the TAB, the NYCTA retains the authority to close the hearing room on an ad hoc basis, provided that its decision complies with the requirements set out in Williams v. Artuz, 237 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.2001), and delineated below. Accordingly, because public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the [TAB] process, Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 8, 106 S.Ct. 2735, we hold that TAB proceedings are subject to a public right of access under the First Amendment.