WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an emergency request from current and former Seattle police officers to keep their identities confidential in court records related to their attendance at a rally for President Donald Trump just before the events surrounding January 6, 2021 at the Capitol, Courthouse News reported.
The officers, who were later cleared of any involvement in the Jan. 6 riot, argued that disclosing their names would violate their First Amendment rights. But in a unanimous decision without a written opinion, the justices denied the request.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a concurring statement that acknowledged the constitutional issues at stake but found the officers did not meet the threshold for emergency relief.
| MORE CASE REVIEWS: Supreme Court 9-0 in highly anticipated Barnes v. Felix use of force case
“The mandate of the Washington Supreme Court was issued more than a month ago, and the applicants have not adequately explained why at this point they still face an imminent danger of irreparable harm,” Alito wrote.
Alito also signaled concern about the First Amendment implications of the case, cautioning that the Court’s decision to deny emergency relief should not be seen as support for the disclosure. He criticized the Washington Supreme Court for dismissing the officers’ privacy claims too narrowly.
Four Seattle officers attended Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, D.C., prior to the Capitol breach. While they were not accused of participating in the violence, their attendance triggered a Seattle Police Department internal investigation. That inquiry ultimately cleared them of wrongdoing.
However, a public records request sought information from the department’s internal review, prompting the officers to sue under pseudonyms to block the release of their identities. They argued that revealing their political affiliations would infringe on their rights to free speech and privacy.
Initially, the Washington Court of Appeals sided with the officers. But the Washington State Supreme Court reversed that ruling, stating the officers had not shown that using their real names in legal proceedings would violate their privacy.
In their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the officers said the disclosure of their responses to investigatory questions, not merely their presence at a public rally, posed a serious threat to their constitutional rights.
“These very private questions strike at the very core of political speech that the Government is now threatening to disclose publicly,” the officers wrote in their appeal. “Although the public is entitled to be informed concerning the workings of its government … this entitlement cannot be unlimited and inflated into general power to invade the constitutional privacy rights of individuals.”
While Alito agreed the state court may have sidestepped the core First Amendment concerns, he concluded that the delay in seeking emergency relief undermined the officers’ claim of imminent harm.
