Due Process Judicial System Immigration Rights Access to Justice Immigrant Rights Political Rights Judicial Processes Judicial Access Judicial Review Government Accountability Citizenship Rights Political Accountability Habeas Corpus Constitutional Rights Amnesty Judicial Oversight Judicial Process Judicial Decisions Immigration Law Judicial Authority Judicial Independence Due Process Rights Police Accountability Amnesty Rights Citizenship Accountability Judicial Accountability Constitutional Protections Criminal Justice Immigration Issues Human Rights Fundamental Rights Search and Seizure Government Overreach Constitutional Challenges Detainee Rights Detention Representation Right to Jury Trial Detention Laws Historical Documents Political Expression Judicial Remedies Nonprofit Governance Judicial Interpretation Justice System Healthcare Access Pardons and Clemency Equality Before the Law Prison System Protection of Civilians Property Rights Right to Privacy State of Emergency Jury Trials Detention Issues Protests Protests against Law Enforcement Abortion Rights Targeted Prosecution Public Awareness Bail Rights Undertrial Detention Political Figures Witness Protection Citizenship Issues Impartiality in Justice Law Enforcement Judicial Reforms Public Perception Judicial Fairness Government Oversight Arrestee Rights Abortion Debate Government Intrusion Rights of Children Protest Movements Amparo Resources Professional Secrecy Federal-State Relations Jury Rights Public Information Right to a Fair Trial Prison Conditions Taxpayer Advocacy False Arrest Youth Rights Immunity in Law Freedom of Information Impact of Law Enforcement Religious Freedom Access to Counsel Malicious Prosecution Victims' Rights Fourteenth Amendment Judicial Proceedings Nonprofit Advocacy Permanent Residents Community Support Political Representation
The ruling curtails immediate access by limiting prosecutors to a sealed court copy they may seek to unlock with a warrant.
