MO Law Hiding Witness, Victim Names In Court Filings Voided

A Missouri judge ruled that the state's strict law redacting the names of witnesses and victims from court records violated both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Open Courts provision of the Missouri Constitution. Judge Aaron Martin said a “plain reading” of the 2023 law required the redaction of all witness and victim names from court records and was therefore unconstitutional and “unenforceable,” reports the Gateway Journalism Review. “This isn’t just a win for journalists and lawyers. This is a win for every Missourian and every person interested in government transparency,” said Chad Mahoney of the Missouri Broadcasters Association. Mark Sableman, the St. Louis lawyer who argued against the law, said the ruling “restores Missouri court filings to the way they have always been for centuries, until last year – transparent and open to the public, except for those unusual situations where there is a proven need for confidentiality. This ruling reopens our window to the courthouse, so that journalists, citizens, and researchers can again fully see and understand what our courts are doing.”

Legal experts described the redaction requirements – now struck down – as the most extensive in the nation. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said the law does not require so many redactions as the media lawyers say and did not violate the constitutions. Sableman said the plain words of the law could not reasonably be interpreted any other way than prohibiting the use of names of witnesses and victims in public court records. Most Missouri courts have interpreted it in that broad fashion, leading to widespread redactions. Sableman has said that the law made Missouri into the “State of Unnamed Persons.” Paul Cassell, a former federal judge and victims rights advocate, said he didn’t know of any law like it in the nation. He said it was "difficult to justify application of such a rule without narrowing it to circumstances where good reason may well exist for privacy (such as juveniles and sex assault cases).”