Background
Plaintiff Scott Martin operated a business collecting criminal defendants’ contact information from public bail bond orders to distribute to private attorneys. Harris County issued an administrative order restricting public access to the contents of misdemeanor bond orders, limiting visibility to titles, filing dates, and page numbers. Martin sued the district clerk and judges, claiming the order violated the First and Sixth Amendments and was ultra vires. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the order was a restriction on access to government information and not a violation of constitutional rights.
The court’s reasoning
The court affirmed that the administrative order does not violate the First Amendment because it restricts access to government information rather than prohibiting speech, citing United Reporting Publishing Corp. The court found the order was not ultra vires as it was issued under the express authority of Section seventy-five point four zero three of the Texas Government Code. The Sixth Amendment claim was forfeited due to inadequate briefing, and no substantive due process right to access the information was recognized.
United Reporting did not turn on the source of the restriction. It rested instead on the nature of the restriction. Here, the administrative order does not restrict speech—it restricts access to government information.
Scott Martin v. Marilyn Burgess, No. 24-20495, slip op. at 6 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2026)
What it means going forward
The ruling confirms that courts may restrict public access to specific sensitive data within criminal records without violating the First Amendment, provided the restriction is viewed as a denial of access to government information rather than a ban on speech.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download