What's With the Pseudonymity in the National Air & Space Museum / "Rosary Pro-Life" Hat Lawsuit?

The First Amendment case, which I just noted below, is being litigated as Kristi L. v. National Air & Space Museum. Why a pseudonym, given that most lawsuits are litigated in the parties' own names?

Here's the rationale Chief Judge Beryl Howell (D.D.C.) gave yesterday:

Plaintiffs are "students, parents and/or chaperones of Our Lady of the Rosary Church of School in South Carolina" ("Rosary") who are ardently "pro-life." On January 20, 2023, plaintiffs wore hats containing Rosary's name and the term "Pro-Life," while visiting the National Air and Space Museum ("NASM"), where they allege they were "subjected to a pattern of ongoing misconduct by at least five different staff, personnel, employees and/or security guards" because of their "pro-life" message. Plaintiffs sued the NASM and the police/security officers involved, alleging, inter alia, violations of their rights under the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Five of the plaintiffs have now filed the instant motion because they are either parents or siblings of other minor plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and they assert they must also not reveal their full names "so as to further protect the identity of their children and sibling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b) and Local Civil Rules 5.1 and 7." Plaintiffs' motion is granted only because "[i]n cases where the identities of a minor and parent or guardian are 'inextricably intertwined,' courts allow parents or guardians to proceed under pseudonym when suing on the minor's behalf." Asylumworks v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-03815, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 264893, at *8 n.2 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2020). Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a representative of a minor, such as a parent or guardian, sue on behalf of a minor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). "[U]nless the parent or guardian is granted anonymity, the child's identity would effectively be revealed in the court filing through a combination of the name of the parent or guardian and the child's initials. The protection extended to the child by Federal Rule 5.2(a)(3) and federal law would be eviscerated." Eley v. District of Columbia, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147955, *4 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2016) (quotation marks omitted)…. [I]t is further ORDERED that plaintiffs, who are not minors, may proceed by using their first names and the first initial of their last names as pseudonyms; … and it is further ORDERED that the defendants are prohibited from publicly disclosing the plaintiffs' identities or any personal identifying information that could lead to the identification of the plaintiffs by nonparties, except for the purposes of investigating the allegations contained in the Complaint and for preparing an answer or other dispositive motion in response.

Allowing parents to proceed pseudonymously to shield their children's pseudonymity is generally the majority view (see p. 1400 of The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation), though there are some dissenting decisions, see p. 1401 n.230. Note that several adult plaintiffs in this case (including some students who were over 18) who aren't relatives of the child plaintiffs sued under their own names.

Gag orders forbidding defendants (including individual defendants) from publicly identifying the pseudonymous plaintiffs are more frowned on, because they are direct speech restrictions, though they too are sometimes issued (see pp. 1375-76). But in this case it seems likely that the individual defendants would learn the plaintiffs' names only through the litigation process, which might make the restriction on publicizing those names more justifiable (see Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart (1984)).

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

D.C. NASM staff, personnel, employees and/or security guards abusive and unprofessional? next you’ll be telling me D.C. has a high violent crime rate.
and rather than George Carlin’s ” Didja ever notice most of the women against abortion you wouldn’t want to (redacted) in the first place”
betting it was more on the lines of “Hey you Ho’s I wouldn’t (redact) you with Marin Barry’s (redacted)!!”

Frank

[@TheRealStuff]

I fully agree with Chief Judge Beryl Howell’s decision to allow the plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms in the Kristi L. v. National Air & Space Museum case. The use of pseudonyms is necessary to protect the minors involved and to ensure that their identity is not revealed through court filings. The judge’s decision to grant the plaintiffs’ motion is in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b), Local Civil Rules 5.1 and 7, and Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The judge’s order to prohibit the defendants from publicly disclosing the plaintiffs’ identities is also a responsible step to ensure the protection of the minors’ privacy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Superstitious, fledgling hayseeds from nonsense-teaching, discriminatory schools in bigoted southern states have rights, too. Even when represented by un-American, bigoted, Trump-hugging lawyers.

If evidence indicates these students were discriminated against for being superstitious and opponents of abortion, the people who discriminated against them were wrong. Even assholes who discriminate against others are entitled to legal protections against discrimination.

[Mr. Bumble]

As always, adding so much to the conversation. Carry on (because of course you will).

[BadLib]

I’m hopeful that Reason’s upgrades to the comment software will eventually include the option (set by default) to hide all ancestors of a hidden user’s comment.

This would make the Volokh experience better for those who hide a few outrageous users (such as the Costco branded Reverend).

As well it would likely result in fewer comments feeding the trolls so they likely would reduce their activity somewhat when deprived of some of the attention they so crave in their empty lives. This would also help viewers who don’t hide anyone. Some of these are “newbies” and may be less likely to decide the comment section, and hence the blog, is a dumpster fire and abandon it before they discover the ‘mute user’ feature or notice the five or so users that earned that click through their deranged chronic postings.

If implemented then this comment would, of course, have been hidden for many viewers as would the one I’m replying to! But then I would have seen only a single grey box rather than a thread I had to scroll through – a win-win.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If they have rights, how are you going to be able to shove progress down their throats?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingers get to whine about all of this damnable progress as much as they like. Better Americans will nonetheless continue to arrange our national progress against the efforts and preferences of those clingers.

When conservatives open their mouths to whine, whimper, and mutter, it makes it easier for the liberal-libertarian mainstream to shove even more progress down the bigoted, half-educated, disaffected throats of right-wingers.

See? It’s all good. Conservatives whimper. Better Americans win.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I thought you’d dropped the “shove down throats” line based on an inchoate realization that it went too far even for you. Apparently not.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You don’t consider that an apt term for the manner in which the American mainstream has been required to arrange our national progress against the kicking-and-screaming obstructive efforts of progress-disdaining, bigoted conservatives?

Why not? Better Americans improving our society by overcoming right-wing efforts in the other direction has become the American way.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Protecting the kids from being ‘Sandmanned’?

And I doubt that these victims will get a similar recompense from the Smithsonian’s rentacops

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It wasn’t only the kids that were allowed anonymity, and not only the plaintiffs either.