In the spring 2025 semester, the Vanderbilt Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic filed an amicus brief for the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, the ACLU of Tennessee, FIRE, the Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press, Authors Guild, and Electronic Frontier Foundation in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. The case, McCaleb v. Long, is on appeal from a decision in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
“The case arose when The Center Square, a news organization in Tennessee, attempted to attend meetings of the Advisory Commission on the Rules of Practice & Procedure, a judicial body whose members draft, discuss, amend, and send rules of practice and procedure for the legal field to the Tennessee Supreme Court for review and enactment,” explained Mary Hernandez ’26, who authored the brief. The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts closed their meetings to the public. The Center Square’s editor-in-chief, Dan McCaleb, challenged the closure under the First Amendment right of public access and received a preliminary injunction in his favor. However, the district court later concluded that the First Amendment did not grant McCaleb the right of access sued for, and he appealed.
In the brief, amici argue that the Richmond Newspapers “logic and experience test” is the relevant precedent for cases on a public right of access to government proceedings in the Sixth Circuit. In Richmond Newspapers, the Supreme Court explained that public access to governmental, particularly justice-related, proceedings is a First Amendment right if, first, keeping that action open is logically in line with the purposes of the First Amendment, such as open government, public trust, and citizen input; and, second, if the public has a history of experiencing access to that or similar proceedings.
Amici assert both prongs are met in this case. Amici contend that the public has a First Amendment right of access to the Advisory Commission on the Rules of Practice & Procedure meetings under the Richmond Newspapers logic and experience test. These meetings are an integral part of the workings of the justice system in Tennessee and, along with similar meetings, have historically been open to the public.
“The issues in this case strike at the heart of what the First Amendment protects: the right of the public to know how their government works, especially when it comes to the rules that shape our legal system,” said Jennifer Safstrom, Assistant Clinical Professor and Director of the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic. “The public had previously been able to access these judicial rulemaking meetings. Closing the door to them now undermines transparency, accountability, and public trust.”
The Appellant and Appellee will submit additional briefs, after which the Sixth Circuit may choose to set the case for argument or issue a ruling based on the submitted briefs.
