RSF - Reporters sans frontières

04/13/2026 | News release | Distributed by Public on 04/14/2026 12:41

USA: RSF files legal brief to defend press access to federal immigration courts

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has filed an amicus curiae brief in federal court to support a lawsuit brought by immigrant rights group The Advocates for Human Rights challenging policies that bar the press and the public from observing deportation proceedings in US immigration courts. RSF calls on the court to safeguard citizens' right to information by ensuring that reporters can attend these hearings.

The lawsuit, Advocates for Human Rights v. Bondi, contends that under the Trump administration, public access to immigration court proceedings has been repeatedly denied, a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Filed on April 13, the RSF amicus curiae brief - a statement presenting additional relevant arguments to the court by an entity that is not party to the lawsuit - asserts that these restrictions extend to reporters who have been turned away without sufficient justification.

The brief argues that this violates the First Amendment by denying the press, and by proxy, the wider public, their First Amendment right of access to these legal proceedings. Deportation hearings, RSF emphasizes, are "formal adjudications that determine whether individuals may remain in the United States, and therefore must be subject to public scrutiny." The lawsuit seeks to obtain a preliminary injunction to halt the ongoing closure of hearings and prevent further exclusion of the press and public.

"Journalists serve as the public's eyes and ears, especially in settings where most people cannot be physically present. When immigration courts are closed to the press, the public is deprived of its ability to understand how life-altering decisions are made and whether those decisions are carried out fairly. For over a century, the American legal tradition has recognized that openness is essential to the legitimacy of judicial proceedings. Shutting out the press not only violates that tradition, it also erodes confidence in a system that must be transparent to be trusted. We call on the court to protect citizens' right to information and grant the requested preliminary injunction."

Clayton Weimers
Executive Director, RSF North America

RSF's position is supported by more than a century of legal precedent. From early federal practices to modern regulations, deportation hearings in the US have long been presumptively open to the press, with only narrow, case-specific exceptions permitted. The government has provided no justification for why any exception should apply in the present circumstances. The current blanket restrictions represent "a sharp and unjustified departure from this well-established norm," according to the brief.

RSF is represented in this amicus by the Harvard University Cyberlaw Clinic.

Published on 13.04.2026
RSF - Reporters sans frontières published this content on April 13, 2026, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein. Distributed via Public Technologies (PUBT), unedited and unaltered, on April 14, 2026 at 18:41 UTC. If you believe the information included in the content is inaccurate or outdated and requires editing or removal, please contact us at [email protected]