On October 14, the Immigration Justice Transparency Initiative submitted a suggestion to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to amend Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. It is now public on uscourts.gov as Suggestion 26-CV-44, and its status is "pending consideration." You can also read the full text (PDF).
Why we filed
Rule 5.2(c) limits remote public access in immigration cases to the docket and the court's own orders. Everything else, including routine legal briefing, can be accessed only at a courthouse terminal. Our network of more than 900 vetted volunteers has visited 82 federal district courts to retrieve these filings, and we have acquired and made available more than 30,000 documents. That experience shows us both what the current rule keeps out of public view and what sensitive information actually appears in these files.
What we propose
Our suggestion offers practical, ready-to-use rule text that opens the documents the public most needs to see while keeping the most sensitive material protected:
- Open the core legal documents. Petitions, motions, briefs, and legal memoranda in immigration cases would be remotely accessible. Attorneys would follow the ordinary Rule 5.2(a) redaction requirements for them, which they are currently exempt from.
- Keep the sensitive material at the courthouse. Exhibits, attachments, and the administrative record would stay available only in person.
- Include magistrate judges' recommendations. In at least five districts, reports and recommendations are routinely locked from remote access, even though they often contain the court's main analysis. The amendment would say plainly that they are covered.
- Protect people without lawyers. When a party is unrepresented, remote access to their filings would begin only after a 30-day hold and a clerk's notice explaining how to protect sensitive information. This is adapted from a procedure the District of Massachusetts has used since 2019.
- Apply going forward. The new provisions would cover only cases filed after the effective date.
Our coalition
We're grateful to everyone who joined us: the ACLU of Florida, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the National Immigration Project, along with scholars Graeme Blair (UCLA), Gabriel J. Chin (UC Davis), Chloe N. East (CU Boulder), Kit Johnson (University of Oklahoma), Caitlin Patler (UC Berkeley), and Leti Volpp (UC Berkeley).
What's next
Our suggestion joins several related ones already pending before the committee. The committee will decide whether to take up the issue, and we'll share updates here as the process moves forward. In the meantime, our volunteers will keep doing what they've been doing: making public records actually public.
If you'd like to help, you can donate or get in touch about volunteering.