JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., December 20, 2024 – A Missouri law passed in 2023 that required a blanket redaction rule for all witness and victim names in court filings is unconstitutional and unenforceable, Judge Aaron Martin of Moniteau County ruled Friday in Cole County Circuit Court.
“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, the President and CEO of the Missouri Broadcasters Association.
The MBA has asserted from the beginning that the language added to 2023’s Senate Bill 103, without hearings or public comment, was unconstitutional on multiple grounds.
The MBA, Gray Local Media and co-plaintiffs filed suit earlier this year. (Michael Gross et al. v. State of Missouri et al., Case No 24AC-CC04658) Judge Martin heard arguments on their motion on December 4 seeking judgement that the law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the federal constitution, and under the “Open Courts” provision of the Missouri Constitution. Martin issued his judgement just 16 days later.
“I am gratified that Judge Martin agreed that the blanket ban on witness and victim names in court filings was unconstitutional,” said MBA attorney Mark Sableman. “His order 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.”
The law imposed a blanket requirement on all lawyers and judges in Missouri, and required them to redact from court filings the names and personally identifying information from all witnesses and victims. The redaction requirement applied even to judicial orders and opinions. After the law’s effective date in August 2023, Missouri judicial rulings referred to witnesses and victims, if at all, with initials, relationship phrases, and other vague indicators.
“News organizations need facts and context to report the whole truth,” Mahoney explained. “Documents have been heavily redacted under this broad-brush statute and a lot of the context has been missing. This has made it very difficult for our MBA member stations to inform the public. We are very pleased that Judge Martin has ruled this law unenforceable and journalists can get back to fully informing the public about court proceedings.”
The court ruled in favor of MBA and its co-plaintiffs on their federal and state constitutional challenges. As to three other claims, concerning the way the redaction provisions were passed in a long omnibus bill containing many other statutory changes, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the omnibus bills violated the original purpose, single subject, and clear title requirement for legislation.
One other claim, relating to the state constitutional provision that limits how the legislature may make changes to judicial rules, remains pending. The court denied the State’s request to dismiss that claim, and plaintiffs’ have not yet sought a ruling on that claim.
Read the Partial Judgement on the Pleading: mba-partial-judgment-on-the-pleadings
