Courthouse News Service, et al. v. Amy Quinlan

Portland, Maine constitutional law lawyers represented Plaintiffs who sued Defendants on a First Amendment violation theory seeking injunctive relief.



When the Maine Supreme Judicial

Court (SJC) piloted an electronic case filing system for the

state's trial courts, its original rules required court clerks to

withhold public access to new civil complaints until three business

days after at least one defendant had been served, resulting in

delayed access, possibly for months. On February 3, 2021, a group

of Maine newspapers and a national legal media company sued a pair

of state court officials, alleging that such delayed access

violated the First Amendment. The SJC then changed its rules to

eliminate the specific timeframe for providing access. Instead

of delineating a new deadline, it now allows the public to access

newly filed civil complaints after court clerks process them. The

rules do not specify how quickly that processing must occur.

The plaintiffs filed first amended complaints alleging

that, despite that change, the rules still imposed significant

delays on accessing newly filed civil complaints. They sought a

preliminary injunction. The defendants sought dismissal of the

amended complaints, asserting that the plaintiffs had failed to

state a plausible First Amendment claim. In their response to the

motion for a preliminary injunction, the defendants disputed the

plaintiffs' assertion of undue delays.



The district court held that the plaintiffs had failed

to state a claim, dismissed the complaint, and denied the motion

for a preliminary injunction as moot. Courthouse News Serv. v.



* * *



Neither this court nor the Supreme Court has recognized

any right under the First Amendment to access documents filed in civil cases.7 The parties agree that there is a qualified First

Amendment right in the public to access newly filed complaints.

See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. ("Press-Enterprise II"),

478 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1986). But see El Dia, Inc. v. Hernandez Colon,

963 F.2d 488, 495 (1st Cir. 1992) (expressing doubt as to extension

of qualified public right of access to civil proceedings).8 Where

they differ is on when, and to what, the right attaches. The

defendants claim the right does not attach until a rules-compliant

complaint is processed, but the plaintiffs claim that the right

attaches at the time a complaint (even if it is ultimately non-

conforming) is filed. We need not decide that quarrel here because

the defendants concede that some level of First Amendment scrutiny

applies to evaluate whether the time from submission of the

complaint to when public access is available is contemporaneous

enough. The question raised by the plaintiffs' first amended

complaints thus remains whether the time between submission and

provision of public access here passes First Amendment scrutiny.



* * *



Third, we caution that the plaintiffs may obtain relief

only if they establish that the court officials violate the First

Amendment, not merely state law, in delaying their access to

complaints. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465

U.S. 89, 106 (1984); Doe v. Shibinette, 16 F.4th 894, 903–04 (1st

Cir. 2021). If any timelines for providing complaints established

under state law are constitutionally sufficient, then state

officials' failure to adhere to them is a matter for the state

courts.

Vacated and remanded.