Are Plaintiffs More Eligible to Be Pseudonymous in Lawsuits Against the Government? Less Eligible?

Today's D.C. Circuit decision muddies the matter still further.

Many courts list "whether the suit … challeng[es] the actions of the government or that of private parties" as one factor in deciding whether to allow pseudonymity. But which way does that factor cut?

[1.] Some courts conclude that pseudonymity is less available in suits against the government than in suits against private parties, see, e.g., Doe v. Megless (3d Cir. 2011):

Does the subject of the litigation heighten the public's interest? Here, interest "is heightened because Defendants are public officials and government bodies." This factor supports disclosure of Doe's identity.

Likewise, see M.M. v. Zavaras (10th Cir. 1998):

Plaintiff's claim to relief clearly involves the use of public funds, and the public certainly has a valid interest in knowing how state revenues are spent.

See also Femedeer v. Haun (10th Cir. 2000) ("the public has an important interest in access to legal proceedings, particularly those attacking … properly enacted legislation"). Or see Doe v. Pub. Citizen (4th Cir. 2014):

[T]he public interest in the underlying litigation is especially compelling given that Company Doe sued a federal agency.

[2.] Others, though, conclude that pseudonymity is less available in suits against private parties than in suits against the government, see, e.g., S. Methodist Univ. Ass'n of Women L. Students v. Wynne & Jaffe (5th Cir. 1979):

Furthermore, all of the plaintiffs previously allowed in other cases to proceed anonymously were challenging the constitutional, statutory or regulatory validity of government activity. While such suits involve no injury to the Government's "reputation," the mere filing of a civil action against other private parties may cause damage to their good names and reputation and may also result in economic harm.

Therefore, according to courts take this view (see, e.g., J.W. v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2016), which is heavily cited by D.C. federal courts),

[A]nonymous litigation is more acceptable when the defendant is a governmental body because government defendants "do not share the concerns about 'reputation' that private individuals have when they are publicly charged with wrongdoing."

[3.] Now let's break down the lawsuits against the government into (a) facial challenges that seek primarily to strike down statutes or regulations (often on constitutional grounds) and (b) individualized challenges that focus on the circumstances of the particular plaintiff.

Some courts conclude that pseudonymity is more available in the individualized challenge cases than in the facial challenge cases, presumably because individualized challenges are less important to the public, e.g., Doe v. Blinken (D.D.C. 2025):

When a plaintiff requests individualized relief against a government defendant—as here, where Doe challenges a yearlong delay in adjudicating his [Special Immigrant Visa] application—the fourth factor favors pseudonymity.

[4.] But other courts conclude that pseudonymity is more available in the facial challenge cases than in the individualized challenge cases, because facial challenges don't turn as much on the identity and credibility of the particular plaintiff (e.g., Megless; Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant (2d Cir. 2008))

The factors in favor of anonymity [have] included … whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the litigant's identities.

Thus (see Doe v. Cristini (W.D. Pa. 2025)),

"Anonymity is favored when the case involves issues purely of law[,]" while "[a] highly fact-dependent case weighs against anonymity." … Plaintiff's claims are not purely legal claims. They turn on fact-intensive inquiries requiring the development of a significant factual record …. Consequently, this factor weighs against granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously.

[5.] Now, let's consider today's D.C. Circuit decision in Doe v. Hall:

[The inquiry into "whether the action is against a governmental or private party"] looks to the identity of the opposing party as a tool for measuring the public interest in transparent litigation. Reputational harm [as in SMU Ass'n] can be one relevant public interest because a lack of reputational reciprocity can create unfairness in litigation strategies, risks, and tactics.

But that is not the only relevant concern. The nature of the claim raised against a party can also affect the extent of the public interest in transparent litigation. For example, constitutional claims can only be pressed against a government or a close governmental affiliate, and yet they have much more far-reaching consequences for the public interest than most private litigation. On the other hand, class actions or private antitrust actions seeking broad or structural relief against private businesses could trigger a more significant interest in transparency than one person's claim for an individual monetary payment from the government.

In other words, [this inquiry] is not a binary factor that always tips one way or the other based on the identity of the nonmoving party.  Rather, depending on the nature of the claims raised and relief sought, the identity of a party can materially change the public interest in open and evenhandedly transparent litigation.

This seems to suggest that the question actually has to do with the public importance of the claim rather than with the identity of the defendant. But at the same time courts often conclude that the individualized nature of what the D.C. Circuit called "one person's claim for an individual monetary payment from the government" may cut against pseudonymity. See, e.g., Doe v. Cristini (quoted above in item 4).

[6.] Or perhaps all this means that this factor actually doesn't matter much, see Doe v. Frank (11th Cir. 1992)

Doe argues that his case for anonymity is supported by the fact that he is suing the government. While this factor may be significant, it must be viewed in the context that it was first articulated. "Challenging the … validity of government activity" was initially mentioned as a factor in SMU Ass'n. The case involved, inter alia, four female lawyers who wanted to proceed anonymously against two Dallas law firms in a sex discrimination suit….

[B]ecause the plaintiffs were suing private individuals rather than a government agency, the court found more reason not to grant the plaintiffs' request for anonymity. Wynne & Jaffe does not stand, however, for the proposition that there is more reason to grant a plaintiff's request for anonymity if the plaintiff is suing the government. Consequently, the fact that Doe is suing the Postal Service does not weigh in favor of granting Doe's request for anonymity.

Or maybe not. Very little is clear when it comes to the law of pseudonymous litigation.