In a recent ruling by Judge Aaron Martin of Moniteau County, it has been declared that a Missouri law passed in 2023, which mandated the redaction of all witness and victim names in court filings, is both unconstitutional and unenforceable. The decision was made in Cole County Circuit Court on Friday, December 20, 2024.
Chad Mahoney, the President and CEO of the Missouri Broadcasters Association, expressed his enthusiasm for the recent victory by stating, “This is not just a victory for journalists and lawyers, but for every Missourian and anyone who values government transparency.”
The MBA has consistently argued that the language added to Senate Bill 103 in 2023, without any hearings or public input, is unconstitutional for various reasons.
The MBA, along with Gray Local Media and other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit earlier this year (Michael Gross et al. v. State of Missouri et al., Case No 24AC-CC04658). On December 4, Judge Martin heard arguments on their motion, which sought a judgment declaring the law unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the federal constitution and under the “Open Courts” provision of the Missouri Constitution. Just 16 days later, Martin issued his judgment.
MBA attorney Mark Sableman expressed his satisfaction with Judge Martin’s decision, stating, “I am pleased that Judge Martin recognized the unconstitutionality of the blanket ban on witness and victim names in court filings.” Sableman emphasized that this ruling restores transparency to Missouri court filings, which have historically been open to the public for centuries. He highlighted the importance of allowing journalists, citizens, and researchers to have a clear view of the court proceedings, enabling them to comprehend the actions taken within the judicial system.
In Missouri, a law was implemented that mandated lawyers and judges to remove the names and personally identifying information of all witnesses and victims from court documents. This redaction requirement, which came into effect in August 2023, applied to not only court filings but also judicial orders and opinions. As a result, when referring to witnesses and victims, Missouri judicial rulings would use initials, relationship phrases, and other ambiguous indicators, if mentioned at all.
“Reporting the whole truth requires news organizations to have access to facts and context,” Mahoney explained. “Unfortunately, the broad-brush statute has resulted in heavily redacted documents, causing crucial context to go missing. This has made it incredibly difficult for our MBA member stations to effectively inform the public. We are delighted that Judge Martin has deemed this law unenforceable, allowing journalists to resume their important role of providing comprehensive coverage of court proceedings.”
The federal and state constitutional challenges brought by MBA and its co-plaintiffs were decided in their favor by the court. However, the court did not agree with the plaintiffs’ argument that the redaction provisions in the omnibus bill violated the original purpose, single subject, and clear title requirement for legislation.
The court denied the State’s request to dismiss the claim related to the state constitutional provision that limits how the legislature may make changes to judicial rules. Plaintiffs have not yet sought a ruling on that claim.
To access the Partial Judgement on the Pleading, please read the document titled “mba-partial-judgment-on-the-pleadings”.
Also Read:
- Texas Woman Gets Bitten by a Snake While Sitting on the Toilet — and Still Goes to Church Hours Later
- Texas enacts harsh measures targeting transgender athletes
