{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01658374792703151, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006633499170812604, 'mean_word_length': 4.830917874396135, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Could Wild Horses Drag Access Away From Courtrooms? Expanding First Amendment Rights to New Pastures

More than thirty years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States created a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia. At the time—and in the Supreme Court cases that immediately followed Richmond Newspapers—the assumption was that such a right of access would apply only to judicial proceedings. This article examines a small but significant body of case law that extends the First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings to new venues far removed from courtrooms. Using the 2012 opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Leigh v. Salazar as an analytical springboard, this article analyzes how the so-called experience-and-logic test fashioned by the high Court in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court in 1986 is being applied in such cases. Cases like Leigh also provide an excellent opportunity for courts to clarify precisely the nature and extent of the history required to find qualified rights of access given the relatively recent government program to which the plaintiff in that case now seeks access.