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.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.
FAS has partnered with ICLEI USA to launch the CRI Local Advisory Council.