Maki v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

Background

On May 21, 2025, the court docketed an opinion and order resolving motions to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis then moved to seal that opinion and order. The Bank sought to keep confidential three categories of information: details about law-enforcement shifts and staffing at the Bank, staffing of security posts, and changes to security protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rodney Maki opposed the motion.

The earlier opinion addressed the parties’ competing summary-judgment motions concerning Maki’s Title VII claim and his religious objections to the Bank’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. The court had denied those summary-judgment motions as to that claim, in large part because factual disputes remained about social distancing, possible post or shift reassignment, voluntary shift-swapping, scheduling and staffing costs, and whether all officer posts and shifts required Maki’s core duties.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a common-law right of public access. That right supports public evaluation of the fairness and reasonableness of court proceedings and accountability for the courts. The right is not absolute, so the court must balance the public’s interest in access against the interests supporting confidentiality.

The court gave particular weight to whether the court used or relied on the information in exercising its decision-making authority. It also recognized that compelling reasons, including national-security concerns, can overcome the presumption of public access.

Reasons for the ruling

The court denied the Bank’s motion. First, it found that the information was material and important to the decision denying the parties’ summary-judgment motions. The court said the reasoning behind the religious-accommodation and undue-hardship analysis could not realistically be understood without access to that information.

Second, the court found that the Bank’s national-security and safety concerns were not clear or described specifically. The basic security-checkpoint procedures, screening equipment, and number of security personnel at each location were visible to members of the public who entered the Bank. The Bank did not identify any nonpublic security procedures discussed in the summary-judgment opinion.

Third, the court found that the Bank had not explained how knowledge of its past COVID-19-era security protocols could threaten its security at present or in the future. Fourth, the information had been discussed during a public hearing, and no request had been made to close the courtroom.

Disposition

Judge Tostrud ordered that the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis’s Motion to Seal Opinion and Order, ECF No. 115, was DENIED.