A New York judge on Thursday rejected a request from news organizations to unseal the 1990 court records from Donald Trump’s first divorce, saying it should not be up to the courts to decide if those documents would be valuable to voters.
The New York Times and Gannett newspapers argued that unsealing the records would “resolve an ongoing campaign controversy” about whether Ivana Trump accused her ex-husband of sexual assault during the course of the divorce proceedings, Politico reported.
In his ruling, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Frank Nervo wrote, “Were the court to make the confidential records available for journalistic, and thus public, scrutiny, it would impermissibly inject itself into the political process by making the value judgment of what information is useful in determining the present candidate’s, or any other candidate’s, fitness for office.”
Nervo also wrote that even if the court ruled that the records hold public value in determining Trump’s fitness for office, that standard would not hold for his ex-wife, who is not a candidate.
Earlier this month, lawyers for Donald and Ivana Trump both filed legal briefs opposing the motion.
"… it would impermissibly inject itself into the political process by making the value judgment of what information is useful in determining the present candidate’s, or any other candidate’s, fitness for office.”
But isn’t it doing exactly that by choosing to not release?
What is a typical standard for agreeing to unseal divorce records?
No. If it were normal practice to make the records of divorce proceedings public, but the court declined to do so in this case, that would be an example of the court injecting itself. But such proceedings are not normally public, so the court is simply doing what is expected. Sounds like the correct decision, to me.
Edit: I’ve got this wrong. These are usually public records unless the divorce court has agreed to seal them. I have no idea why these were sealed in the first place, but I have the gut feeling that it would be improper for another court to unseal them now, solely because people want to know what’s in them. This court would be hard-pressed to justify second-guessing the judge who sealed the records.
The decision seems a little bullshit to me. Anyone know the standard for whether court documents should be sealed in NY? I can tell you it certainly isn’t “when they’re of no interest to voters.” I don’t understand why this shitty argument was made by the NYT unless it was to deliberately lose.
I don’t’ know about NY law, but under the laws of most states, court files in dissolution cases are public records like all other civil cases. The parties must ask them to be sealed and have a reason. So, Donald Trump is probably getting treated differently than the average person. Is that appropriate?
Will be curious to see what the appellate court says.