Navy Criminal Trials Now Open to Public Following Landmark Lawsuit
A federal judge has ruled that the Navy’s longstanding policy of concealing criminal trial records violates the First Amendment, forcing the service to provide public access to court-martial proceedings and records. The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by ProPublica in 2022, marking a significant victory for transparency in the military justice system.
Years-Long Battle for Transparency
The lawsuit originated after the Navy denied ProPublica’s requests for court documents related to a high-profile arson case involving Seaman Recruit Ryan Mays, who faced a life sentence for a fire that destroyed the USS Bonhomme Richard in 2020. ProPublica’s investigation revealed concerns about the evidence used to prosecute Mays and a military judge’s recommendation to drop the charges.
First Amendment Rights Apply to Military Courts
Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that the First Amendment right of public access extends to military courts and records. ProPublica reported the judge’s decision on September 12, 2025, stating it was the first time a federal court had affirmed this right in relation to military proceedings.
Changes to Navy Policy
As a result of the ruling, the Navy must now provide more timely access to nonclassified records from trials, regardless of the outcome, as well as from preliminary hearings. This includes Article 32 hearings – investigations similar to civilian grand jury proceedings – which the Navy previously argued were internal advisory documents not subject to public release. The judge disagreed, noting their similarity to public civilian court proceedings.
The Navy is required to turn over hearing and trial transcripts within 30 days of a request and other court records within 60 days. The service must provide 10 days’ notice of preliminary hearings, including the full names of defendants and their charges, an improvement over the Pentagon’s previous three-day notice requirement.
Impact on Oversight and Accountability
Advocates for military justice reform hailed the decision as a crucial step toward greater oversight and accountability. Frank Rosenblatt, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, told ProPublica that access to Article 32 reports is vital for revealing potential issues such as scapegoating, investigative flaws, and undue command influence.
Implementation Challenges and Future Steps
The Navy acknowledged that implementing the court order will require significant revisions to its policies, instructions, and training programs. While the judge did not mandate the secretary of defense to issue similar rules across all military branches, ProPublica had requested such an order, citing a 2016 federal law calling for timely release of documents at all stages of the military justice system. The Pentagon’s 2023 policy addressing this law was deemed insufficient by ProPublica.
The Navy did not respond to requests for comment on the judge’s order but indicated to the court its general interest in complying with the law.