Summary

Re: AskGPO: Inquiry Status Closed 00195418: U.S. Courts opinions on govinfo.gov Attached is '45-X-20250616-MOOT-restricted-records.pdf' Dear Kerry L. Miller, General Counsel, U.S. Government Publishing Office, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts – Office of Judicial Integrity, In good faith, I have interpreted Section 205 of the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, Title II, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899 (2002), as allocating responsibility for public accessibility of federal judicial records between the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Government Publishing Office. Specifically, I understand that the judiciary has designated PACER as its mechanism for satisfying subsection (a)(6), while the GPO fulfills subsection (a)(5) by providing broader text-searchable access via GovInfo.gov. Attached to this message (and pasted below) is a June 16, 2025, order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Case No. 25-1162. Not only is this order omitted from GovInfo.gov, but all other judicial orders filed in that case are likewise missing. As shown in my last email, Case No. 24-cv-3744 (D. Md.) has only two orders publicly available and text-searchable via GovInfo.gov. The Fourth Circuit has explicitly stated that 'the documents are not restricted.' Additionally, court orders are presumptively public under both the common-law right of access and the First Amendment. These rights attach upon filing and prohibit the withholding of judicial records absent narrowly tailored findings. To be clear, I would not be sending a follow-up email if an order had been attached to the missing records. Moreover, no hearing was held prior to the imposition of the prohibitive sanction against me, which was levied—and remains in effect—without order, notice, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Mr Miller, based on your agency's recommendation, I have included the Office of Judicial Integrity in this correspondence to ensure prompt coordination in remedying these statutory and constitutional violations. Furthermore, I note with concern that no one from the Office of Judicial Integrity has proactively contacted me regarding these or related matters. I respectfully request that your office provide availability for a discussion no later than early next week. You may respond in two separate threads if preferred. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 1100 East Main Street, Suite 501, Richmond, Virginia 23219 June 16, 2025 ____________________________ N O T I C E ____________________________ No. 25-1162, Ryan Dillon-Capps v. Ohana Growth Partners, LLC 1:24-cv-03744-BAH TO: Counsel and Parties The parties are advised that the motion to remove restrictions on documents in this case is considered moot and that the court does not intend to take action on the motion as the documents are not restricted. Karen Stump, Deputy Clerk 804-916-2704

Tags