Judge Rejects Request to Close South Carolina Abortion Case
A federal judge ruled that courtroom proceedings must remain public during a trial challenging the state's abortion ban.
Updated on Oct. 16, 2026 in Sex Crimes
Live Poll
Should courts prioritize public trial access over the safety and anonymity of plaintiffs in high-profile cases?
Judge Richard Mark Gergel denied a motion to close the courtroom for testimony in a lawsuit challenging South Carolina's abortion ban. While the request for closure was denied, the court permitted the physician plaintiff to testify under a pseudonym.
Why it matters
The ruling emphasizes the legal presumption of public access to judicial proceedings over individual requests for privacy. By ordering transcript redactions instead of closure, the court seeks to balance constitutional transparency with the plaintiff's documented safety concerns.
Judge Gergel issued an order in the bench trial Bingham v. Wilson, rejecting a motion to seal the courtroom. The court instead mandated specific redactions to educational and professional records within the trial transcript.
The players
Richard Mark Gergel
He is a United States District Judge serving the District of South Carolina who presided over the motion in the case Bingham v. Wilson.
Dr. Jane Doe
She is the physician plaintiff who is challenging South Carolina's abortion ban and reported receiving threats and being doxed.
The details
The plaintiff, a physician identified as Dr. Jane Doe, sought to close the courtroom following instances of doxing and threats from anti-abortion activists. The court determined that the public interest in open proceedings necessitates keeping the trial accessible to the press and public while mitigating risks to the doctor.
Timeline
October 16, 2026: Judge Gergel issued the decision regarding the courtroom closure.
Legal Context
This ruling adheres to the established First Amendment presumption of public access to judicial proceedings. The decision follows a pattern of balancing constitutional transparency requirements against specific safety risks for participants in sensitive litigation.
The public and media maintain their right to observe the ongoing trial proceedings due to the judge's rejection of the courtroom closure request. Residents and local observers can continue to monitor this bench trial as it progresses through the court system.
The takeaway
The court's decision affirms that even in high-stakes litigation, the public's right to view judicial proceedings remains a bedrock principle. Litigants facing harassment may still seek targeted protections like pseudonymity and redaction without barring the public from the courtroom.
Further reading
For more information on legal proceedings involving sensitive testimony, visit South Carolina Sex Crimes.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Reason.
Live Poll
Should courts prioritize public trial access over the safety and anonymity of plaintiffs in high-profile cases?
