Courthouse News Service v. Joan Gilmer, No. 21-2632 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff Courthouse News is a national “news service that reports on civil litigation in state and federal courts throughout the country.” When Missouri switched to an e-filing system, same-day access became the exception, not the rule. Newly filed petitions remain unavailable until court staff processes them, which can sometimes take “a week or more.” Courthouse News sued the Circuit Clerk for St. Louis County and the Missouri State Courts Administrator, alleging First Amendment violations. In their motion to dismiss Defendants asked the district court to either abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), or rule that Courthouse News’s complaint failed to state a First Amendment claim. The district court decided to abstain and never ruled on the merits.
At issue on appeal is: First, does sovereign immunity protect state-court officials who run an e-filing system that delays public access to newly filed civil petitions? Second, should federal courts abstain from hearing this type of case anyway? The Eighth Circuit reversed concluding that the answer to both is no. The court explained that the case-at-issue does not resemble the classic Younger situation: a litigant runs to federal court to cut off an impending or actual state-court proceeding that is unlikely to go well. Here, the dispute about who gets to see newly filed petitions and when, and neither is the subject of any pending state-court proceeding. The court reasoned that if Courthouse News eventually prevails on its constitutional claim, declaratory relief would mitigate this concern to some degree by giving Missouri courts “the widest latitude in the ‘dispatch of [their] own internal affairs.’”
Court Description: [Stras, Author, with Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff, a news service covering Missouri courts, alleged the St. Louis County Circuit Court's delay in providing reporters access to new complaints violated the First Amendment; the district court decided to abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and plaintiff appeals. The suit is not barred by principles of sovereign immunity as the injunction sought would not enjoin the state court from proceeding in their own way to exercise jurisdiction in case proceedings; the district court erred in abstaining in the matter as the case concerns a dispute over who gets to see newly filed petitions and when, and neither of those questions is the subject of any pending state-court proceedings; the case is remanded for further proceedings; on remand, the district court should give continuing attention to the delicate issue of avoiding excessive interference by federal courts in state-court business. [ September 14, 2022 ]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.