Advisory Opinions The Secrecy in Courts Dilemma
13 snips
Oct 15, 2026 
Stanford law professor Nora Engstrom, a civil-litigation scholar, and Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California join a discussion on excessive court secrecy, sealing orders, protective orders, and public access. They explore how hidden records can obscure public risks, when redaction beats wholesale sealing, and whether judges need stronger enforcement tools. The conversation also covers FOIA and DOGE, material support for terrorism, Supreme Court cases, and surviving Big Law.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
The Real Question Behind Terrorist Cooks
- The material-support case likely turns less on whether cooking helps terrorists and more on whether the support was knowing and voluntary.
- Coercion, such as cooking under threat, could distinguish a refugee from a willing employee.
Sealing Orders Operate Like Reverse Strict Scrutiny
- Courts formally presume openness, yet empirical data shows sealing motions receive near-automatic approval.
- Researchers found 90% granted, 75% unopposed, and half lacking any stated legal standard.
Digital Permanence Does Not Erase Open Courts
- Sealing involves genuine privacy concerns because digital records spread permanently, but courts must still follow governing openness rules.
- Nora Engstrom says lower courts’ failure to apply higher-court standards is itself a serious institutional problem.