Fact check: Can the public access sealed documents through Freedom of Information Act requests?

1. What people are claiming — the competing assertions that matter

Analysts assert two competing propositions: one, that the public has a presumptive right to court and agency records under FOIA and related transparency principles; and two, that court-ordered seals and statutory FOIA exemptions create real, enforceable limits on that presumptive access. The materials summarize the claim that court records are "presumptively public" but emphasize instances where a judge can order materials sealed or redacted to protect privacy, privileged communications, or sensitive commercial information ^{[2] [1]}. Parallel claims assert the FOIA itself contains exemptions that justify non-disclosure, and that the Supreme Court has recognized the force of judicial seals against FOIA obligations, framing the controversy not as a gap in FOIA law but as a conflict between judicial orders and statutory disclosure obligations ^{[3] [4]}.

2. How courts have resolved FOIA requests for sealed records — a judicial reality

The authorities show a clear judicial trend: courts will uphold seal orders against FOIA requests when a valid judicial finding supports sealing. The Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled that federal agencies do not abuse discretion by complying with court injunctions that block disclosure, effectively insulating sealed materials from FOIA compelled release when a court order binds the agency ^[3]. At the same time, courts scrutinize the basis for seals: sealing orders lacking articulated justification can be vulnerable, and litigants have sometimes successfully argued against blanket seals where the record does not show adequate justification for secrecy ^[5]. This produces a mixed landscape where seals usually stand but can be undone on procedural or substantive challenge.

3. The presumptive publicness of court records — but with meaningful exceptions

A repeated theme in the analyses is the presumption of public access to judicial records and proceedings, grounded in transparency and the First Amendment tradition, while acknowledging routine exceptions for privacy, privilege, and safety ^{[2] [6]}. Courts and clerks maintain procedures for filing redacted or sealed materials precisely because the default is openness; the procedural frameworks reflect a balancing act between public scrutiny and protection of sensitive details. That balance means FOIA-like disclosure instincts inform but do not override court sealing practices; when courts determine sealing is necessary, those sealed items are often treated as outside the normal disclosure regime ^[1].

4. Military, privilege, and special contexts where FOIA loses force

The compiled analyses highlight contexts where FOIA release is particularly constrained, including court-martial records or proceedings sealed by military judges and materials involving recognized privileges like attorney-client or doctor-patient communications ^{[3] [6]}. In military and other special tribunals, courts have explicitly held that FOIA cannot be used to force agencies to violate court-directed seals. Similarly, state-specific statutory exemptions can broaden sealing beyond federal FOIA exemptions, further restricting access when sensitive personnel, vendor, or contract information is involved ^[6]. These domain-specific limits show FOIA’s reach is not uniform across all types of judicially sealed materials.

5. Commercial secrecy, recent doctrinal shifts, and the FOIA pathway

Recent scholarship and case law developments complicate access where commercial confidentiality and trade-secret claims intersect with FOIA. Analyses note a Supreme Court decision expanded protection for business secrets under FOIA exemptions, encouraging firms to seek secrecy and prompting circuit courts to refine the boundaries of legitimate confidentiality claims ^[7]. That doctrinal development means sealed filings containing proprietary or trade-secret data face an added layer of protection beyond ordinary sealing rationales, and it creates a litigation pathway where courts decide whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to commercial confidentiality ^{[7] [4]}.

6. What this means in practice — where to go if you want sealed material

Practically, FOIA is not a reliable tool for obtaining documents already under court seal; requesters must account for judicial orders, statutory exemptions, and context-specific protections. Successful challenges require demonstrating the absence of a valid sealing rationale, procedural defects in the sealing order, or a weighty public-interest justification that persuades a court to unseal ^{[5] [2]}. When sealed status is based on solid judicial findings or statutory privilege, FOIA requesters should pursue alternative routes: seek intervenor status in the underlying litigation, file motions to unseal in the court that imposed the seal, or target unsealed versions or related agency records not subject to the judicial order. These procedural realities explain why agencies typically honor sealing orders and why FOIA alone rarely forces release of sealed court materials ^{[3] [1]}.