Ninth Circuit Strikes Idaho Delay on New Court Complaints

Ninth Circuit Strikes Idaho Delay on New Court Complaints

On September 3, 2026 the Ninth Circuit held that Idaho courts may not withhold newly e-filed civil complaints from the press and public until a clerk processes them. The First Amendment right of access attaches when the complaint is filed. Courthouse News Service v. Omundson, No. 24-6697.

Information last verified on September 5, 2026.

Status: Decided. A three-judge panel filed a published opinion on September 3, 2026 affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, which had granted summary judgment to Courthouse News Service and denied Idaho's cross-motion (D.C. No. 1:21-cv-00305-DCN, Judge David C. Nye). The appeal was argued and submitted December 3, 2025 in Portland, Oregon. The opinion does not address any petition for rehearing, rehearing en banc, or certiorari, and we did not confirm any post-decision docket activity as of September 5, 2026.

Jurisdiction scope: This decision binds the federal courts of the Ninth Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, plus Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. It adjudicates one Idaho state-court e-filing policy for one category of civil complaints. It does not decide the legality of any other state's e-filing practice, does not reach criminal filings, and does not change any sealing or confidentiality rule.

What Happened

Courthouse News Service (CNS) is a nationwide news service that reports on civil litigation and reviews newly filed complaints in state trial courts every day. It sued Sara Omundson in her official capacity as Administrative Director of the Idaho Courts, the official responsible for statewide e-filing and public access procedures.

Between 2015 and 2018 Idaho moved its courts to Odyssey, an e-filing system from vendor Tyler Technologies. Idaho runs Odyssey in its default configuration, which the panel called a "process-first" policy: a submitted complaint sits in a local queue until a clerk reviews it and either accepts or rejects it. Only on acceptance does the complaint become visible to the press and the public.

The parties agreed that the clerk's review itself takes about five minutes per complaint. The delay comes from the wait before that review starts. Quoting the district court, the panel noted that "what takes time is not the individual review itself, but the county clerk finding time in their busy day to get the review done."

The measured effect was substantial. Under the process-first policy, complaints were typically made public between several hours and several days after submission. More than forty percent were not released until the day after filing, and fifteen percent were delayed two or more calendar days. The burden was uneven: the district court in Kootenai County, which includes Coeur d'Alene, withheld every complaint e-filed in April 2021 for at least one day, and withheld 98 percent of them for two or more calendar days (slip op. 8).

The panel resolved three things. First, it held the district court was right not to abstain under O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, because the relief sought is a one-time change to an e-filing configuration rather than ongoing federal supervision of Idaho's judiciary (slip op. 9 to 12). Second, it reaffirmed the attachment rule from Courthouse News Service v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2020), often called Planet III:

"the press has a qualified right of timely access to newly filed civil nonconfidential complaints that attaches when the complaint is filed" Courthouse News Service v. Omundson, No. 24-6697, slip op. at 5 (quoting Planet III, 947 F.3d at 585)

Third, on the merits, it held that Idaho failed the scrutiny test drawn from the Press-Enterprise cases:

"Idaho has not met its burden to prove that its asserted interests would be substantially impaired by immediate access to newly filed complaints and that no reasonable alternative to its current policy exists that adequately protects those interests." Courthouse News Service v. Omundson, No. 24-6697, slip op. at 5

Idaho had advanced three interests: preventing clerical error, reducing public confusion, and protecting confidential information. The panel rejected each. On error correction, it observed that immediate access does not require abolishing clerk review, and that Idaho could amend its own administrative rules to let clerks fix filing errors after acceptance. On confusion, it suggested a notice stamped on unreviewed complaints. On confidentiality, it pointed to Idaho's own rule placing that duty on the filer, and noted that between January 2020 and July 2022 only one complaint in the relevant category was filed with a request for sealing (slip op. 18 to 20).

The panel also rejected the premise that a court rule can define the constitutional trigger: "When court administrative rules and a constitutional right collide, the constitutional right prevails" (slip op. 19).

On remedy, the panel was explicit about what it was not doing. Odyssey offers an Auto Accept configuration at no additional subscription fee and a Press Review Queue priced at an annual $108,000, and the panel treated Auto Accept as a reasonable alternative Idaho had failed to rule out. But it wrote that it was "not requiring Idaho to adopt Tyler Technologies' Auto Accept product," holding only that "Idaho's current process-first policy violates CNS's First Amendment right of timely, public access to newly filed complaints in the A.A. filing fee category," and adding that "Idaho is free to restructure its public-access policy as it sees fit, so long as that policy incurs only delays that are justifiable under the rigorous Press-Enterprise test" (slip op. 21).

What the Law Actually Says

The baseline that most court filings are open to anyone who asks predates e-filing by centuries, but the constitutional version of it is comparatively recent and it is narrower than readers usually assume.

The right at issue is a qualified First Amendment right of public access to judicial proceedings and documents. Qualified means it can be overcome. In Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986), the Supreme Court set out both halves of the framework: an "experience and logic" test that decides whether the right attaches to a given proceeding at all, and, where it attaches, a test asking whether there is a substantial probability that a higher value would be impaired and whether reasonable alternatives could adequately protect that value. That second test, layered on the standard from Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984), is what the Ninth Circuit calls Press-Enterprise scrutiny.

Planet III already ran the experience-and-logic step for exactly these records, so the Omundson panel did not repeat it (slip op. 17 n.4). What Planet III also said, in the same breath as the sentence everyone quotes, is the limit: the right "does not entitle the press to immediate access to those complaints." Delay is permitted. It just has to be justified.

Three boundaries follow, and they matter more than the headline.

It covers nonconfidential civil complaints. A complaint filed under seal, or one covered by a statutory confidentiality rule, is outside the holding. Idaho's own e-filing rules put the redaction duty on the person filing: "It is the responsibility of the filer to ensure that protected personal data identifiers are omitted or redacted from documents before the documents are filed," and "The clerk of the court will not review filings to determine whether appropriate omissions or redactions have been made" (I.R.E.F.S. 15(a)). Nothing in the ruling changes that allocation.

It is a court-rule and constitutional question, not a records-request question. Getting a document from a court is a different track from asking an agency for its files under a state public records statute; judicial branch records in most states are governed by court rules rather than the open-records act, and this case turns entirely on the First Amendment and Idaho's e-filing rules.

Delay does not move your filing deadline. Under I.R.E.F.S. 12(a)(2), when a document is accepted, the date and time of filing entered in the register of actions relate back to when the e-filing system received it. A clerk who takes two days to process a complaint does not thereby cost the filer two days against a statute of limitations. That is a separate question from when the public gets to see the document, which is what this case decided.

For how the practical mechanics work in the state at the center of the case, see our walkthrough of Idaho court records, and for the general rules in other states, the court records section.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The reader question underneath this case is not a press-freedom question. It is: if someone sued a company, a landlord, a hospital or a public agency this morning, when can an ordinary person find out?

In Idaho, the answer had been "whenever a clerk gets to it," which the record showed meant the next day more than forty percent of the time. The panel's framing is worth noting: it repeatedly describes the interest as public access, and describes the policy as withholding complaints from the press and the public. The plaintiff here was a news service, and the holding runs to that plaintiff's right, but the doctrine the panel applied is not a special press privilege. It is the same access right a member of the public stands on at the courthouse counter.

Two features of the reasoning have reach beyond Idaho. One is the refusal to let a court's own definition of "filed" set the constitutional clock. That argument, that a submitted complaint is like a document still in the hands of someone standing in line, is the argument every process-first jurisdiction makes, and the panel joined the Tenth Circuit in rejecting it on the ground that the court already has the document. The other is the treatment of cost. Idaho argued expense, but the record showed the no-delay configuration carried no additional subscription fee and Idaho made no attempt to quantify the transition costs it asserted. A state making the same argument on a developed cost record would be presenting a different case.

The concurrence deserves separate handling because it is not law. Judge McKeown, who also wrote the majority opinion, filed a concurrence joined by Judge Sung arguing that the Ninth Circuit erred in Planet III by labeling Press-Enterprise scrutiny "rigorous, but not strict," and that "under Supreme Court precedent, Press-Enterprise scrutiny is a strict-scrutiny test, and should be applied as such" (slip op. 23). She reasons that a policy delaying access is a denial of access rather than a time, place and manner restriction on a speaker. Two of the three panel members signed that view, which makes it notable, but the panel's own merits analysis applied the rigorous-scrutiny formulation from Planet III, and a panel cannot overrule circuit precedent in any event. Anyone citing this decision should cite the majority for the holding and the concurrence only as a separate opinion.

Finally, the practical significance is bounded in a way the phrase "public on filing" obscures. This decision does not make every document in a case file public at the moment it hits the queue. It concerns the initiating complaint in one fee category, it leaves sealing intact, and it expressly permits delay that a state can justify.

How This Affects You

If you are trying to see a newly filed civil case in Idaho, the practical change is timing rather than eligibility: complaints in the A.A. filing fee category were already public once processed, and the dispute was about how long the wait may be.

If you are a plaintiff or defendant in an Idaho civil case, your obligations do not change. The filer, not the clerk, is responsible for redacting protected personal data identifiers before filing, and a complaint containing sensitive material still needs redaction or a sealing motion, not reliance on processing lag.

If you are looking for a different type of record, this ruling is not your authority. It is about complaints filed in court. Obtaining a copy of a police report, for example, runs through a law-enforcement agency under separate rules, not through the court's e-filing queue.

What Happens Next

The panel affirmed the district court's judgment. The opinion does not set a compliance deadline or specify a configuration, and it does not reproduce the precise terms of the district court's order, so the operative remedial requirements are those of the district court's judgment rather than anything spelled out on appeal. Idaho may switch to automatic acceptance, to a press review queue, or to any other arrangement whose remaining delays it can justify under Press-Enterprise scrutiny.

Whether Idaho seeks rehearing en banc or Supreme Court review is not addressed in the opinion, and we did not verify any post-decision filings as of September 5, 2026. The decision would become settled circuit law absent en banc rehearing or Supreme Court reversal.

As the opinion itself catalogs, the Second, Fourth and Tenth Circuits have each held that the First Amendment right of access covers newly filed nonconfidential civil complaints, while the Seventh Circuit affirmed abstention in a comparable suit and the Eighth Circuit declined to abstain. States outside the Ninth Circuit that run process-first e-filing are not bound by this ruling, and their practices remain unadjudicated here.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes a published federal appellate decision governing the Ninth Circuit and an Idaho state-court e-filing policy, verified against the slip opinion on September 5, 2026. Court access rules differ by state and by case type, and a decision can be modified on rehearing or review. For a specific filing, records request or access dispute, consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.

Related articles

• Are court records public?
• Idaho court records: what is available and how to search it
• Court records access, state by state
• How state public records laws work
• Getting a police report

Last updated: 2026-09-05. Details verified as of 2026-09-05.