Courthouse News Services v. Dorothy Brown
Not published with traditional reporter citation; 7th Cir. 2018 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal courts must generally abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim seeking an injunction that would dictate a state court clerk's internal procedures for managing access to newly filed documents, based on principles of equity, comity, and federalism, especially when state courts have not yet had an opportunity to address the constitutional issue.
Facts:
- Courthouse News Service (CNS) is a news service that reports on civil litigation and compiles "New Litigation Reports" summarizing new civil complaints across the country.
- Historically, CNS reporters obtained same-day access to newly filed paper complaints at the Cook County Clerk's Office by reviewing copies placed in a tray behind the intake counter.
- With the advent of electronic filing in 2009, the Clerk's Office initially continued to provide same-day access by printing electronically filed complaints as they were received.
- In January 2015, the Clerk's Office stopped printing e-filed complaints and began withholding them until administrative processing was completed and they were officially accepted and posted online.
- This new policy resulted in delays in access for CNS reporters, with CNS claiming almost 40% of electronically filed complaints were not accessible on the same day they were filed.
- An Illinois Supreme Court order made electronic filing mandatory in the Cook County Circuit Court as of July 1, 2018.
- CNS contacted Clerk Brown's office, proposing options for quicker press access, but the Clerk refused, explaining that e-filed complaints are not considered received or filed until processed and accepted.
- Clerk Brown cited Cook County Circuit Court General Administrative Order No. 2014-02 and the Illinois Supreme Court's Electronic Filing Standards, which state that e-submitted documents are considered filed "if not rejected," as mandating an "accept/reject" process before release, and raised concerns about confidential information and reporting on rejected complaints.
Procedural Posture:
- Courthouse News Service (CNS) filed a lawsuit in November 2017 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, seeking injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County.
- CNS moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Clerk Brown from processing electronically filed complaints before allowing press access.
- Clerk Brown opposed the motion, arguing, among other things, that federal courts should abstain from adjudicating the case under the Younger abstention doctrine.
- On January 8, 2018, the district court (Judge Matthew F. Kennelly) granted CNS's motion for a preliminary injunction, rejecting Clerk Brown's abstention arguments and ordering her to implement a system providing contemporaneous access to newly e-filed civil complaints.
- Clerk Brown filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and a motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal.
- The district court denied Clerk Brown's motion to stay the preliminary injunction, but the Seventh Circuit subsequently granted a stay.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the principle of abstention, rooted in federalism and comity, require a federal court to decline jurisdiction over a First Amendment challenge to a state court clerk's procedures for providing access to newly filed electronic complaints before state courts have an opportunity to resolve the issue?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton, Circuit Judge
Yes, the district court should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction over this case. The relief sought by Courthouse News Service (CNS) directly affects the administration of the state courts and would run contrary to the basic principles of equity, comity, and federalism. While this case does not fit neatly into the traditional Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine because there is no individual, ongoing state proceeding, it aligns with the Supreme Court's extensions of Younger principles in O'Shea v. Littleton and Rizzo v. Goode. These cases caution against federal injunctions that would lead to an "ongoing federal audit" or "significant revision of the internal procedures" of state or local government entities. State courts have a significant interest in managing their own clerks' offices and setting their filing procedures, especially in a large court like Cook County, and are best positioned to interpret their own orders and balance institutional needs with First Amendment access rights. Federal courts should not dictate in the first instance how state court clerks manage filing procedures and timing of press access, as this constitutes too high a level of intrusion. Unless and until state courts have proven unwilling to address an alleged First Amendment violation, federal courts should not exercise jurisdiction. The court respectfully disagreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision in a similar case (Courthouse News Service v. Planet) which found abstention inappropriate, arguing that federal court involvement would likely continue and create a precedent for dictating state court procedures.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of abstention doctrines, particularly the broader principles of equity, comity, and federalism, to federal court challenges involving state court administrative procedures. It creates a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on this specific issue, emphasizing that the Seventh Circuit prioritizes state court autonomy in managing internal affairs, even when First Amendment rights are invoked. Future litigants in the Seventh Circuit seeking to challenge state court filing or access procedures on federal constitutional grounds will likely be required to first pursue remedies within the state court system, reinforcing the idea that federal courts act as a court of last resort in such matters.
