Federal Judge Orders Navy to End Secrecy in Criminal Trials, Mandates Public Access
In a significant ruling for military justice transparency, a federal judge has ordered the U.S. Navy to cease its longstanding practice of shrouding criminal trials in secrecy. The decision, issued last month by U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the Southern District of California, requires the service to provide public access to hearings and court records, aligning its practices more closely with those of civilian courts. The judgment is the direct result of a yearslong lawsuit filed by the investigative news organization ProPublica.
“This is a landmark victory for transparency,” said Sarah Matthews, ProPublica’s deputy general counsel. “It’s the first time a civilian court has held that the First Amendment right of public access applies to military courts and records. The Navy was allowed to prosecute our service members in secret for far too long, but that ends now.”
Yearslong Battle for Transparency
The Ryan Mays Case: A Catalyst for Change
The lawsuit, filed in 2022, stemmed from the Navy’s refusal to release court documents in the high-profile arson case of Sailor Ryan Mays. Mays faced life imprisonment for a 2020 fire that destroyed the USS Bonhomme Richard, an amphibious assault ship. A ProPublica investigation revealed that the Navy proceeded with prosecution despite a military judge’s recommendation to drop charges and a lack of evidence both linking Mays to the fire and confirming arson as the cause. This case exemplified a systemic issue: the Navy’s policy of withholding virtually all records from preliminary hearings and, in cases that went to trial, only releasing scant documents after the fact—and exclusively if the outcome was a guilty verdict.
What the Ruling Changes
Access to Critical “Article 32” Hearings
Judge Moskowitz’s order dismantles this policy. The Navy must now provide timely public access to all nonclassified records from both courts-martial and preliminary hearings, regardless of the case’s outcome. A crucial victory is the mandated release of reports from Article 32 hearings, the military’s equivalent of a civilian preliminary hearing. In these proceedings, a hearing officer reviews evidence and recommends whether charges should proceed. The Navy had argued these reports were “non-binding, internal advisory documents” exempt from disclosure. The judge rejected this, stating Article 32 hearings are “strikingly similar” to their civilian counterparts, which are presumptively open.
Frank Rosenblatt, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, a nonprofit advocacy group, emphasized the importance. “Congress intended for the military justice process to be a public window into what is happening with the military, and Article 32 reports in many cases end up being highly newsworthy,” he said. “These proceedings often reveal scapegoats, investigative flaws and command influence on matters of public concern not long after incidents happen.”
New Deadlines and Notice Requirements
The ruling sets specific deadlines. Transcripts from hearings and trials must be provided as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after a request. All other court records must be released as soon as possible, but within 60 days. Furthermore, the Navy must give advanced public notice of preliminary hearings, including the full names of defendants and their charge sheets. While the Pentagon had issued guidance requiring at least three days’ notice, Judge Moskowitz found this insufficient and increased the requirement to 10 days.
Matthews noted that while the ruling does not mandate real-time, contemporaneous access like some civilian courts, it is a monumental shift. “We’re thrilled that the Navy can no longer withhold more than 99% of the court records,” she said.
Limitations of the Decision and Next Steps
The judge’s order applies specifically to the Navy. He declined to issue a nationwide injunction requiring the Secretary of Defense to implement similar transparency rules across all military services, as ProPublica had requested under a 2016 federal law. That law called for “timely” release of documents “at all stages of the military justice system.” The Pentagon’s policy, issued in 2023, fell short of this mandate. Judge Moskowitz stated he could not compel the Secretary because the duties outlined in the law were “imprecise and subject to discretion.”
The Navy acknowledged the operational challenge, stating in a court filing that compliance “will require substantial amendments to multiple Navy policies, instructions and standards, including revisions to guidance for preliminary hearing officers, and the development and delivery of comprehensive training across the Navy.” The service did not respond to requests for comment on the ruling, though government lawyers previously told the court that “the Navy has an interest in complying with the law in general.”
