In January 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied an effort to dismiss the civil lawsuit Courthouse News Service v. Hade (No. 3:21-cv-00460) that was challenging the restrictions placed on public access to electronic court records in the state of Virginia.
Courthouse News Service (CNS) – a nationwide news service for lawyers and the news media – filed the lawsuit in July 2021 and named as the defendants the executive secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia and a clerk for the Circuit Court of Prince William County, Virginia.
The lawsuit claimed Virginia courts violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by giving Virginia attorneys who paid a fee instant electronic access to new court records while members of the public were limited to in-person requests.
In Virginia circuit courts, clerks provide the public with access to the court records at the physical courthouse, but some circuit courts provide access to civil court records remotely via the internet on a system called the “Virginia Officer of the Court Remote Access (OCRA),” according to the opinion.
CNS reporters usually traveled to Virginia circuit courts to access the civil court records. In an effort to save money and travel time, CNS asked many circuit court clerks for access to OCRA even though its staff members were not licensed attorneys. Every circuit court clerk denied CNS access to OCRA.
CNS claimed enforcement of OCRA’s non-attorney access restriction and dissemination restriction by the defendants violated the First Amendment and that the defendants discriminated against CNS by enforcing OCRA’s non-attorney access restriction in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The defendants argued in their motions to dismiss that the plaintiff CNS failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, while Defendant Hade also argued that he enjoyed sovereign immunity and that the District Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over him, according to the opinion.
The Court found “an expansive exception to sovereign immunity where state officers may be sued in their official capacity when the plaintiff is only seeking prospective injunctive relief to remedy the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute” and officers “acted or threatened” to enforce the statute.
“The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint adequately alleges that Defendant Hade was empowered to enforce the statutes at issue and, therefore, Defendant Hade does not enjoy sovereign immunity. Thus, the Court will deny Defendant Hade’s Motion to Dismiss,” the opinion stated.
ClearStar – a Hanover Investors portfolio company – is a leading provider of Human Capital Integrity℠ technology-based services specializing in background, credit, and medical screening. To learn more about ClearStar, please visit www.clearstar.net.
© 2022 ClearStar. All rights reserved. – Making copies of or using any part of the ClearStar website for any purpose is prohibited unless written authorization is first obtained from ClearStar. ClearStar does not provide or offer legal services or legal advice of any kind or nature. Any information on this website is for educational purposes only.
Let's start a conversation
Thomas Ahearn - News Blog Editor and Public Relations Specialist
Thomas Ahearn is our News Blog Editor and Public Relations Specialist. Our News Blog provides information about the background check industry to employers, HR professionals, recruiters, and consumers. ClearStar's News covers a variety of topics including Ban the Box, credit reports, criminal records, data breaches, drug testing, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), E-Verify, Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), HR technology, identity theft and fraud, jobs reports, lawsuits involving screening, Millennial workforce, privacy issues, social media background checks, and workplace violence.
At ClearStar, we are committed to your success. An important part of your employment screening program involves compliance with various laws and regulations, which is why we are providing information regarding screening requirements in certain countries, region, etc. While we are happy to provide you with this information, it is your responsibility to comply with applicable laws and to understand how such information pertains to your employment screening program. The foregoing information is not offered as legal advice but is instead offered for informational purposes. ClearStar is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice and this communication does not form an attorney client relationship. The foregoing information is therefore not intended as a substitute for the legal advice of a lawyer knowledgeable of the user’s individual circumstances or to provide legal advice. ClearStar makes no assurances regarding the accuracy, completeness, or utility of the information contained in this publication. Legislative, regulatory and case law developments regularly impact on general research and this area is evolving rapidly. ClearStar expressly disclaim any warranties or responsibility or damages associated with or arising out of the information provided herein.
