KANSAS CITY — The Missouri Broadcasters Association and Gray Media are celebrating a decision by a Cole County, Mo., Circuit Court Judge that finds a state law passed in 2023 requiring a blanket redaction rule for all witness and victim names in court filings is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
At issue is language added to Missouri Senate Bill 103 in 2023 that was done minus any comment period or without hearings. For the broadcasters’ association, this constituted a legal violation of the U.S. Constitution, on various grounds.
Judge Aaron Martin of Moniteau County agreed, issuing a ruling on December 20 in Cole County Circuit Court.
The case (Michael Gross et al. v. State of Missouri et al., Case No 24AC-CC04658) saw Gray Media and other co-plaintiffs sue the Show-Me State, with Martin hearing arguments on their motion on December 4. Just 16 days later, Martin concluded that the U.S. Constitution and Missouri’s “Open Courts” constitutional provision were each violated.
The law imposed a blanket requirement on all lawyers and judges in Missouri, and required them to redact from court filings the names and personally identifying information from all witnesses and victims. The redaction requirement applied even to judicial orders and opinions. After the law’s effective date in August 2023, Missouri judicial rulings referred to witnesses and victims, if at all, with initials, relationship phrases, and other vague indicators.
Chad Mahoney, President/CEO of the Missouri Broadcasters Association, commented, “News organizations need facts and context to report the whole truth. Documents have been heavily redacted under this broad-brush statute and a lot of the context has been missing. This has made it very difficult for our MBA member stations to inform the public. We are very pleased that Judge Martin has ruled this law unenforceable and journalists can get back to fully informing the public about court proceedings.”
An additional claim, relating to a Missouri state constitutional provision that limits how the legislature may make changes to judicial rules, remains pending. The court denied the state’s request to dismiss that claim, and plaintiffs’ have not yet sought a ruling on that claim.
