In Bingham v. Wilson, a South Carolina federal judge rejected a request to close the courtroom while a plaintiff identified as Dr. Jane Doe testified. The plaintiff, a physician challenging the state's abortion ban, had sought to keep the public and press out during her testimony, citing safety concerns after threats and doxing. The court acknowledged those concerns but held that the public's right of access is especially strong in a case of this nature, and that closure was not warranted when other measures could address the risk.
The judge applied the legal framework for courtroom openness, noting that civil trials are presumptively open and that closure requires specific findings. While a partial closure can be justified by a substantial reason, the court found no sufficient circumstances here. Instead, it allowed Dr. Doe to testify under her pseudonym and ordered selected portions of the transcript redacted to avoid indirectly identifying her, calling this an appropriate balance between safety and transparency.
The defendants did not file any opposition to the plaintiff's motion, so the ruling rests on the court's own analysis of the public's interest and the plaintiff's evidence of harassment. The decision underscores the tension in high-profile litigation between protecting individuals from retaliation and maintaining open judicial proceedings.