Columbus, OH – On Thursday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Newman v. Moore with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, arguing that where government “proceedings risk limiting an individual’s rights and—like a judicial disciplinary proceeding—risk confidence in the judiciary, those proceedings should be open to the public.”

“Public confidence in the judiciary is the backbone of our judicial system. And the public cannot be confident in the judiciary or its disciplinary proceedings if those proceedings continue behind closed doors,” said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. “Because of this, the Founders and the courts have understood the importance of open judicial proceedings—a right protected by the First Amendment.”

In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that: 

• Conducting judicial disciplinary proceedings in the dark undermines public confidence in our judiciary;
• The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 was intended to boost public confidence in the judicial complaint process, but it falls short of that goal;
• Key to public confidence in the judiciary is the free and open public access to inherently adjudicatory procedures; and
• English Common Law, which is the basis for much of America’s judicial system, and the First Amendment guarantee the right to open access to judicial proceedings, and that should apply to administrative proceedings such as the one in question in Newman v. Moore.

Judge Newman is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

# # #