Redaction Statutes Declared Unconstitutional

On December 20, 2024, and as-amended on January 2, 2025, the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri declared portions of the new court filing redaction rules unconstitutional. Specifically, the Circuit Court held that the 2023 amendments to Section 509.520.1(4) and Section 509.520.1(5) of the Missouri Revised Statutes, which respectively required witness information and victim information be redacted from court filings, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Open Courts requirement of Article I, § 14 of the Missouri Constitution. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 509.520.1(4) (requiring redaction of “[v]ictim information, including the name, address, and other contact information of the victim”); 509.520.1(5) (requiring redaction of “[w]itness information, including the name, address, and other contact information of the witness”).

The plaintiffs, who included the Missouri Broadcasters Association, Michael L. Gross (a Missouri attorney), Nina McDonnell (a Missouri attorney), and William H. Freivogel (a Missouri publisher and journalist), brought the lawsuit against the State of Missouri, Governor Michael Parson, and Attorney General Andrew Bailey. The plaintiffs argued that United States Supreme Court and Missouri Supreme Court precedent clearly recognize a constitutional right of access to court records, proceedings, and other public records. The plaintiffs claimed that they were “suffering irreparable harm” because of their inability “to fully report on [Missouri] judicial records,” which prevented them from informing their audiences of the “full facts about the important governmental business of the judicial system.” Further, the plaintiffs argued that the public is irreparably harmed by the redaction rules because they limit the media’s ability to “serve as an effective watch-dog over actions in and activities of the judicial system.” The plaintiff-attorneys also argued that they and their clients and potential clients were irreparably harmed by an inability to “take on and pursue various cases, issues, and arguments because of the redaction limitations imposed.” The plaintiff-attorneys also cited the substantial expenses imposed on attorneys, clients, and the judicial system to undertake compliance with the new redaction requirements.

The defendants argued that the statutory provisions should be interpreted only as mirroring the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (i.e., the Missouri rules of civil procedure), which require only that the names of witnesses and victims be redacted when that information is made confidential by court order or other law—“not in all proceedings.” The defendants contended practitioners and appellate courts were needlessly redacting all names from court filings and opinions. The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs’ procedural challenges were time barred.

Considering the lack of clarity on the new redaction requirements and the significant, statewide effect of the judgment, the judgment will likely be appealed. If you have any questions, please contact an attorney from our Media & Communication practice group.