But reputational and professional harm is generally not a basis for allowing pseudonymity in most cases (since so many litigants face some such harm from the allegations in their cases being public). Did it make sense to allow it here?
and thus presumptively a First Amendment violation (though here the presumption was rebutted by national security interests).
No pseudonymity for teacher challenging removal of pride flags from classroom, because his identity had already been disclosed through public records requests.
Many other courts do generally allow pseudonymity in those particular cases, but the Seventh Circuit disagrees.
Petitioner's new-found "public figure" status, and concerns that records are "impeding his employment, professional credibility, and personal safety," don't justify sealing, either.
The podcast is M. Gessen’s story about cousin Allen Gessen (who is the plaintiff in this case) and his murder-for-hire conviction. Extra juicy tidbit in this case: Venue!
"[T]he materials at issue concern the conduct of public officials acting in their official capacities, which substantially diminishes any cognizable privacy interest and weighs against restriction."
The Second Circuit just affirmed lower court decisions so holding.
The plaintiff claims he was denied admission to Harvard Business School, apparently because he is a "non-veteran, non-queer, non-Jewish White male applicant[]."
"But that does not mean that litigants have a right to hide them from the public once they are implicated in court proceedings."
The case helps illustrate why the legal rules surrounding when parties can litigate under pseudonyms are so important.
"The substantial public interests implicated by questions of the proper scope of Executive power and the statutory limits on access to tax information warrant public disclosure. While this case, and ... this decision, are now unsealed, the underlying Application and its supporting materials will remain under seal, at least while the investigation remains active ...."
[UPDATE 11/17/2015 10:21 am: Sorry, post title originally accidentally omitted the "as a 'Jane Doe'" (which of course is what this decision is about, see below); I've revised the title to include it. My apologies!]
"The fact that disclosure means Plaintiffs 'could be deemed litigious' or that future employers 'may treat Plaintiffs' association with this litigation as a red flag' is not sufficient to allege a substantial privacy interest."
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks