The right to a public trial is fundamental to our constitutional system. It’s a right that belongs to the public itself, protected by the First Amendment, and to a criminal defendant, protected by the Sixth Amendment.
Given the importance of the public trial right, it’s no surprise that years ago the Supreme Court held that before a judge closes a courtroom to members of the public, the judge must undertake a four-part fact-specific analysis to determine whether the closure is necessary in the circumstances.
Despite this longstanding precedent, the Supreme Court of Florida allows courts there to close courtrooms reflexively according to a statute that requires closure in certain circumstances. Two other states allow for the same, in contrast to at least nine states and the federal courts of appeals that correctly hold that regardless of a courtroom-closure statute a court still needs to undertake the case-specific inquiry required by the Supreme Court.
We petitioned for certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to address the Florida courts’ blatant disregard of the Supreme Court’s decisions governing courtroom closure. We were supported by two amici briefs, filed by the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression and a group of law professors. The Supreme Court asked Florida to respond to our petition, and we filed a reply. Unfortunately, the Court denied our petition, allowing the unconstitutional practice of closing the courtroom without a fact-specific analysis to continue in Florida and two other states.
We’re proud to have partnered with the Office of the Public Defender in Florida on this case.