Summary
This Sixth Circuit opinion addresses whether a journalist has a First Amendment right of public access to closed meetings of the Tennessee Judicial Advisory Commission. The court holds that the experience-and-logic test for public access applies only to adjudicatory proceedings, not to purely advisory bodies like the Commission. Consequently, the plaintiff's First Amendment claim fails, and the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant is affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the First Amendment experience-and-logic test applies to a request for access to non‑adjudicatory advisory commission meetings
- Whether the appellant has a constitutional right of access to the Tennessee Judicial Advisory Commission meetings
Holdings
- The experience-and-logic test does not apply because the Commission’s meetings are not adjudicatory; therefore the First Amendment claim fails.
- No constitutional right of access exists; the district court’s summary judgment is affirmed.
Key quotations
“We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Long.” (8)
“The experience-and-logic test does not apply because the Commission’s meetings are advisory and not adjudicatory.” (8)
Factual background
Dan McCaleb, a journalist, sought public access to meetings of the Tennessee Judicial Advisory Commission, which had been closed to the public since 2018. The Commission advises the Tennessee Supreme Court on rules of practice and procedure and its meetings are advisory, not adjudicatory.
Procedural history
The district court granted a preliminary injunction, later dissolved it and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Michelle Long. The appellant appealed the summary judgment decision.