Judicial Secrecy and the Sunshine in Litigation Act
“Far too often, court-approved secrecy agreements hide vital public health and safety information from the American public, putting lives at stake,” observed Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI).
“The secrecy agreements even prevent government officials or consumer groups from learning about and protecting the public from defective and dangerous products.”
“Legislation that I’ve introduced… seeks to restore the appropriate balance between secrecy and openness. Under our bill, the proponent of a protective order must demonstrate to the judge’s satisfaction that the order would not restrict the disclosure of information relevant to public health and safety hazards.”
Sen. Kohl’s proposed remedy, the Sunshine in Litigation Act, was the subject of a recent Senate hearing that has just been published. See “The Sunshine in Litigation Act: Does Court Secrecy Undermine Public Health and Safety?” (pdf), Senate Judiciary Committee, December 11, 2007.
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.