Pseudonymity OK for Transgender Prisoner’s Challenge, But Rest of Filings Must Be Unsealed
From today’s decision in Doe v. Ga. Dep’t of Corrections, by Chief Judge William Pryor and Judges Adalberto Jordan and Stanley Marcus:
Plaintiff-Appellee, Jane Doe, is a transgender woman currently in the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDOC”) serving a sentence of life imprisonment. On December 6, 2023, she sued the GDOC and others (collectively, the “GDOC”), claiming that they were violating her Eighth Amendment constitutional rights by refusing to provide her medically necessary care to treat her gender dysphoria. The same day Doe filed suit in the district court, she filed accompanying motions, one seeking leave to proceed in the case anonymously and another seeking preliminary injunctive relief.
In resolving these motions, the district court issued a Pseudonym Order, granting Doe the right to proceed under a pseudonym, and a Preliminary Injunction Order, granting in part and denying in part her request for preliminary injunctive relief. The GDOC has filed an interlocutory appeal in this Court challenging both orders. The GDOC seeks to vacate both the district court’s preliminary injunction and its pseudonym order. We will address that appeal in a separate opinion at a later date.
In the meantime, the GDOC has moved us to unseal the appellate record. While the parties hotly dispute whether we have jurisdiction now to review the district court’s Pseudonym Order, there is no dispute that we have the power to decide a motion to unseal our own docket. “When presented with an appeal, [courts of appeals] routinely unseal documents that were sealed in the district court when those documents are used on appeal and there is no legal basis for sealing.” The GDOC’s cross-motion to unseal only addresses the appellate record accompanying this interlocutory appeal. We consider this to be a matter of considerable immediacy and find it appropriate to address it now, separate from our consideration of the merits of GDOC’s interlocutory appeal.
As we’ve long recognized, “[l]awsuits are public events.” We view “‘[t]he operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges” as “matters of utmost public concern'” because “‘[t]he common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process.'” This is especially the case in criminal trials where the public’s right of acce
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
