Opinion ID: 3011956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: does the richmond newspaperslogic

Text: PRONG, PROPERLY APPLIED, SUPPORT A RIGHT OF ACCESS? Even if we could find a right of access under the Richmond Newspapers logic prong, absent a strong showing of openness under the experience prong, a proposition we do not embrace, we would find no such right here. The logic test compels us to consider whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question. Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 8. The 30 District Court observed that there are abundant similarities between these proceedings and judicial proceedings in the criminal and civil contexts, and concluded that the same functional goals served by openness in the civil and criminal judicial contexts would be equally served in the context of deportation hearings. North Jersey Media, 205 F.Supp. 2d at 301. As we have discussed supra, we agree that deportation proceedings look very much like judicial trials. As we will now explain, however, we find that the logic inquiry has drifted from its intended role and that, properly conceived, it does not support openness in this case. In Press-Enterprise II, the case that formalized the Richmond Newspapers test, the Court identified several reasons that openness plays a significant positive role in preliminary hearings. It recognized that [b]ecause of its extensive scope, the preliminary hearing is often the final and most important step in the criminal proceeding, and in many cases it provides the sole occasion for public observation of the criminal justice system. Id. at 12 (citation omitted). Similarly, it found that the absence of a jury, long recognized as an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge, makes the importance of public access to a preliminary hearing even more significant. Id. at 12-13 (citations omitted). Summarizing that [d]enying the transcript of a [ ] preliminary hearing would frustrate what we have characterized as the ‘community therapeutic value’ of openness, it concluded that a qualified First Amendment right of access attaches to preliminary hearings. Id. at 13. In subsequent cases, this Court has noted six values typically served by openness: [1] promotion of informed discussion of governmental affairs by providing the public with the more complete understanding of the judicial system; [2] promotion of the public perception of fairness which can be achieved only by permitting full public view of the proceedings; [3] providing a significant community therapeutic value as an outlet for community concern, hostility and emotion; [4] serving as a check on corrupt practices by exposing the judicial process to public 31 scrutiny; [5] enhancement of the performance of all involved; and [6] discouragement of perjury. Simone, 14 F.3d at 839. We agree with the District Court and the Sixth Circuit that openness in deportation hearings performs each of these salutary functions, but we are troubled by our sense that the logic inquiry, as currently conducted, does not do much work in the Richmond Newspapers test. We have not found a case in which a proceeding passed the experience test through its history of openness yet failed the logic test by not serving community values. Under the reported cases, whenever a court has found that openness serves community values, it has concluded that openness plays a significant positive role in that proceeding. But that cannot be the story’s end, for to gauge accurately whether a role is positive, the calculus must perforce take account of the flip side -- the extent to which openness impairs the public good. We note in this respect that, were the logic prong only to determine whether openness serves some good, it is difficult to conceive of a government proceeding to which the public would not have a First Amendment right of access. For example, public access to any government affair, even internal CIA deliberations, would promote informed discussion among the citizenry. It is unlikely the Supreme Court intended this result. In this case the Government presented substantial evidence that open deportation hearings would threaten national security. Although the District Court discussed these concerns as part of its strict scrutiny analysis, they are equally applicable to the question whether openness, on balance, serves a positive role in removal hearings. 13 We find that upon factoring them into the logic equation, it is _________________________________________________________________ 13. We recognize that, under our approach, there is an evidentiary overlap between the Richmond Newspapers logic prong and the subsequent compelling government interest strict scrutiny investigation necessary upon a finding of a First Amendment access right. Nonetheless, the inquiries are not redundant because it is possible for openness to serve a positive role under a balanced logic prong even though the government has a compelling interest in closure. This would simply require that the policy rationales supporting openness be even more compelling than those supporting closure. 32 doubtful that openness promotes the public good in this context. The Government’s security evidence is contained in the declaration of Dale Watson, the FBI’s Executive Assistant Director for Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence. Watson presents a range of potential dangers, the most pressing of which we rescribe here. First, public hearings would necessarily reveal sources and methods of investigation. That is information which, when assimilated with other information the United States may or may not have in hand, allows a terrorist organization to build a picture of the investigation. (Watson Dec. at 4.) Even minor pieces of evidence that might appear innocuous to us would provide valuable clues to a person within the terrorist network, clues that may allow them to thwart the government’s efforts to investigate and prevent future acts of violence. Id. Second, information about how any given individual entered the country (from where, when, and how) may not divulge significant information that would reveal sources and methods of investigation. However, putting entry information into the public realm regarding all‘special interest cases’ would allow the terrorist organization to see patterns of entry, what works and what doesn’t. Id. That information would allow it to tailor future entries to exploit weaknesses in the United States immigration system. Third, [i]nformation about what evidence the United States has against members of a particular cell collectively will inform the terrorist organization as to what cells to use and which not to use for further plots and attacks. Id. A related concern is that open hearings would reveal what evidence the government lacks. For example, the United States may disclose in a public hearing certain evidence it possesses about a member of a terrorist organization. If that detainee is actually involved in planning an attack, opening the hearing might allow the organization to know that the United States is not yet aware of the attack based on the evidence it presents at the open hearing. Id. Fourth, if a terrorist organization discovers that a particular member is detained, or that information about a 33 plot is known, it may accelerate the timing of a planned attack, thus reducing the amount of time the government has to detect and prevent it. If acceleration is impossible, it may still be able to shift the planned activity to a yetundiscovered cell. Id. at 7. Fifth, a public hearing involving evidence about terrorist links could allow terrorist organizations to interfere with the pending proceedings by creating false or misleading evidence. Even more likely, a terrorist might destroy existing evidence or make it more difficult to obtain, such as by threatening or tampering with potential witnesses. Should potential informants not feel secure in coming forward, that would greatly impair the ongoing investigation. Id. Sixth, INS detainees have a substantial privacy interest in having their possible connection to the ongoing investigation kept undisclosed. Id. at 8.Although some particular detainees may choose to identify themselves, it is important to note that as to all INS detainees whose cases have been placed in the special interest category concerns remain about their connection to terrorism, and specifically to the worst attack ever committed on United States soil. Although they may eventually be found to have no connection to terrorist activity, discussion of the causes of their apprehension in open court would forever connect them to the September 11 attacks. Id. While this stigma concern exists to some extent in many criminal prosecutions, it is noteworthy that deportation hearings are regulatory, not punitive, see Carlson v. Landon , 342 U.S. 524, 537 (1952), and there is often no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing. Finally, Watson represents that the government cannot proceed to close hearings on a case-by-case basis, as the identification of certain cases for closure, and the introduction of evidence to support that closure, could itself expose critical information about which activities and patterns of behavior merit such closure. (Watson Dec. at 8- 9.) Moreover, he explains, given judges’ relative lack of expertise regarding national security and their inability to see the mosaic, we should not entrust to them the decision 34 whether an isolated fact is sensitive enough to warrant closure. The Newspapers are undoubtedly correct that the representations of the Watson Declaration are to some degree speculative, at least insofar as there is no concrete evidence that closed deportation hearings have prevented, or will prevent, terrorist attacks.14 But the Richmond Newspapers logic prong is unavoidably speculative, for it is impossible to weigh objectively, for example, the community benefit of emotional catharsis against the security risk of disclosing the United States’ methods of investigation and the extent of its knowledge. We are quite hesitant to conduct a judicial inquiry into the credibility of these security concerns, as national security is an area where courts have traditionally extended great deference to Executive expertise. See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 696 (2001) (noting that terrorism or other special circumstances might warrant heightened deference to the judgments of the political branches with respect to matters of national security). See also Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530 (1988) (noting that courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs). The assessments before us have been made by senior government officials responsible for investigating the events of September 11th and for preventing future attacks. These officials believe that closure of special interest hearings is necessary to advance these goals, and their concerns, as expressed in the Watson Declaration, have gone unrebutted. To the extent that the Attorney General’s _________________________________________________________________ 14. The Newspapers contend that speculative evidence is insufficient to withstand strict scrutiny. See Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 13 (requiring specific, on the record findings); Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. 596, 609 (1982) (finding government interest insufficient to merit closure without accompanying empirical support). While we acknowledge the force of this contention, strict scrutiny is appropriate only after finding a First Amendment right. Because we find no such right to attend deportation hearings, the speculative nature is not fatal. 35 national security concerns seem credible, we will not lightly second-guess them.15 We are keenly aware of the dangers presented by deference to the executive branch when constitutional liberties are at stake, especially in times of national crisis, when those liberties are likely in greatest jeopardy. On balance, however, we are unable to conclude that openness plays a positive role in special interest deportation hearings at a time when our nation is faced with threats of such profound and unknown dimension.