Public Access: Exploring Constitutional Boundaries

The constitutional limits on public access are rooted in the First Amendment, which ensures that the government cannot censor information or prevent people from accessing information and places of information exchange, except in rare circumstances. The Sixth Amendment also guarantees the right to a public trial, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) further provides the public with the right to request access to records from federal agencies, with some exemptions for reasons of national security and personal privacy. These rights are balanced by the Privacy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of individual records without consent, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures adequate, effective, and meaningful access to legal materials for inmates.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$239.64 $359

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.32 $126.95

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $14.95

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

The Freedom of Information Act

The FOIA is intended to make US government agencies' functions more transparent so that the American public can more easily identify problems in government functioning and hold Congress, agency officials, and the president accountable. Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of the nine exemptions, which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement. The FOIA also requires agencies to proactively post online certain categories of information, including frequently requested records.

The FOIA has been changed repeatedly by both the legislative and executive branches. Between 1995 and 1999, President Bill Clinton issued executive directives that allowed the release of previously classified national security documents more than 25 years old and of historical interest, as part of the FOIA. This release of information allowed many previously unknown details about the Cold War and other historical events to be discussed openly.

The FOIA provides that when processing requests, agencies should withhold information only if they reasonably foresee that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption, or if disclosure is prohibited by law. Agencies must make reasonable efforts to search for the requested records in electronic form or format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency's automated information system. In addition, agencies must make the raw statistical data used in their reports available electronically to the public upon request, without charge, license, or registration requirements.

The right to a public trial

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a public trial, creating transparency, fairness, and accountability. The public trial right is aimed at ensuring that the accused is dealt with fairly and not unjustly condemned. It also serves a public function, ensuring an extra layer of accountability as the public can determine whether government officials properly carry out their functions without secrecy.

In such cases, the accused's right to a fair trial and the government's interest in orderly judicial administration are weighed against the public's First Amendment right to access. The Supreme Court has recognised the civic and process-related purposes served by open trials, including ensuring a fair and accurate adjudication of guilt or innocence, providing a public demonstration of fairness, discouraging perjury and misconduct, and educating the public about the criminal justice system.

In Waller v. Georgia, the Supreme Court laid out a four-part test to determine whether court closures are appropriate. The Court has held that an accused's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the closure of all seven days of a suppression hearing to protect persons whose phone conversations had been taped, indicating that the need for openness at suppression hearings may be particularly strong when the conduct of police and prosecutors is at issue.

The government's obligation to provide access to the law

The US Constitution is the nation's fundamental law. Information access rights are found in the constitution, statutes, and the common law. The government's primary obligation is to ensure access to the law, which includes statutes, regulations, judicial opinions, and any official statements that carry the force of law. The First Amendment prevents the government from blocking access to certain information or places of information exchange, except in very rare circumstances. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that inmates have "adequate, effective, and meaningful access" to legal research materials so that they may defend themselves in court. The First Amendment, as well as common law rights, also ensure the general public's access to judicial records and proceedings, although this access does not have to be free.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public with the right to request access to records from any federal agency since 1967. Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions that protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement. The FOIA also requires agencies to proactively post online certain categories of information, including frequently requested records. Each agency must make its reports available to the public, including by computer telecommunications or other electronic means, and without charge.

The courts play an integral role in maintaining the rule of law, particularly when they hear the grievances voiced by minority groups or those who hold minority opinions. Equality before the law is an essential part of the American system of government. The federal courts "were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and their legislature" to ensure that the people's representatives acted only within the authority given to Congress under the Constitution. Courts have the responsibility to interpret the Constitution's meaning, as well as the meaning of any laws passed by Congress.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights

$76.95 $76.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism

$59.81 $76.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$100 $345

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

The public's right of access to court proceedings and documents

The First Amendment, as well as common law rights, ensures the general public’s access to judicial records and court proceedings. However, this access does not have to be free. The roots of public access to court proceedings and records lie in "democratic values of accountability and openness". The public has a right to a "full understanding" of criminal proceedings, thereby placing the populace in a position "to serve as an effective check on the system".

The Supreme Court has held that the right to attend criminal proceedings is implicit in freedom of speech and serves an important function in a democratic society by enhancing trial fairness and its appearance. The Court first held that the press and the public had a First Amendment right to attend criminal trials in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980). The right of access to attend jury selections and preliminary proceedings soon followed — in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California (1984) and Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California (1986). The right to a public trial has long been viewed as a safeguard against any attempt to employ courts as instruments of persecution. An open trial assures that the proceedings are conducted fairly and discourages perjury, misconduct, and decisions based on partiality or bias.

The public and the press have a qualified First Amendment right of access to court proceedings and records. The right of public access enables the public to judge the product of the courts in a given case. As such, all judicial proceedings and records are presumptively open to the public. However, this right is not absolute. It is only a presumption of access. Courts are to consider "whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question".

To determine the scope of the common-law right of access, which applies in both criminal and civil proceedings, a distinction is made between items that may be considered public or judicial records and those that may not. The media and public presumptively have access to the former but not to the latter. For example, there is no common-law right of access to discovery material because these materials are neither public documents nor judicial records.

Limits on the government's ability to censor information

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified on December 15, 1791, is a critical safeguard against government censorship. It guarantees the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. The Fourteenth Amendment further extends these protections to state and local governments. The First Amendment establishes a framework that safeguards individuals' freedoms of expression and belief, allowing them to receive ideas and information without government interference.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right to access information as a fundamental right under the First Amendment. In the landmark case of Board of Education v. Pico, the Court asserted that "the right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient's meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom." This decision set a crucial precedent for protecting access to information in public institutions, such as schools and libraries, from government censorship.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), enacted in 1967, further strengthens the public's right to access government information. This legislation grants citizens the right to request records from any federal agency, promoting transparency and accountability in government affairs. While there are exemptions to protect interests like personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement, agencies must proactively disclose information unless disclosure would cause foreseeable harm to protected interests or is prohibited by law.

Additionally, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that inmates have "adequate, effective, and meaningful access" to legal resources, safeguarding their ability to defend themselves in court. This provision extends beyond legal documents to include access to judicial records and proceedings for the general public, although it does not mandate free access.

While the government has a duty to ensure access to information, it is essential to recognize that this access is not entirely unfettered. In rare circumstances, such as profanity or national security concerns, the government may restrict access to specific information or places of information exchange. However, these exceptions are narrowly defined, and the government must not abuse its power to impose particular viewpoints or restrict civic engagement.

Frequently asked questions