Seattle Officers Seek Anonymity in Jan. 6 Lawsuit \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Four current and former Seattle police officers who attended the Jan. 6, 2021, “Stop the Steal” rally are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to protect their identities in public records. The officers argue that releasing their names could violate their privacy and chill political speech. Washington’s highest court ruled their names must be disclosed.
Quick Looks
- Four officers who attended the Jan. 6 rally petitioned SCOTUS to keep their names confidential
- They used “John Doe” pseudonyms in court filings challenging a public records request
- Washington State Supreme Court ruled in February that their names must be released
- A petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed this month after the state court denied reconsideration
- Officers argue name disclosure violates privacy and chills free speech
- Investigation by Seattle Police found two officers violated policy and were fired
- Others were cleared or found “inconclusive” in internal review
- Law student filed public records request that triggered legal dispute
- Response to SCOTUS petition is due Friday
- Case tests balance between public transparency and employee privacy
Deep Look
Four current and former Seattle police officers are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to protect their identities in connection with their attendance at President Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021. In a high-stakes legal battle centered on privacy, free speech, and government transparency, the officers argue that disclosing their names in court documents and public records could lead to harassment, damage their reputations, and chill political expression.
The officers, referred to as “John Does” in legal filings, had previously taken their case to the Washington State Supreme Court, which ruled in February that their identities must be made public under the state’s public records law. That court concluded that the officers had not demonstrated a violation of their privacy rights. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied earlier this month, prompting the officers’ attorneys to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for emergency relief.
The Petition: Privacy vs. Transparency
In their appeal, the officers assert that requiring them to use their real names in litigation and releasing them in public records would set a dangerous precedent—one that could deter government employees from expressing political opinions on their own time.
“At its core, this appeal involves whether a government agency can ignore the chilling effect resulting from an employer requiring an employee to disclose their off-duty political activities,” the petition to the U.S. Supreme Court states.
The officers argue that even though they attended the rally legally and claim to have committed no misconduct, public exposure of their identities would likely lead to targeted harassment or even threats from individuals or media organizations seeking to publicly shame them.
A response to the petition is due to the Supreme Court by next Friday.
Background: Officers Investigated After Jan. 6
Following the violent events of January 6, when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, law enforcement agencies across the country faced questions about whether their own personnel had participated in the protest or riot.
In Seattle, then-Police Chief Adrian Diaz ordered an internal investigation into whether any officers who traveled to D.C. for the rally had violated department policy or committed crimes.
That investigation found that married officers Caitlin and Alexander Everett had crossed police barriers near the Capitol and were in violation of federal law, resulting in their termination.
Three other officers were cleared of wrongdoing, while the fourth case was determined to be “inconclusive.”
Records Request Triggers Legal Battle
The legal challenge stems from a public records request filed by Sam Sueoka, a law student at the time, who sought access to investigation files related to the officers’ participation in Jan. 6 events.
Sueoka’s attorneys have argued that, under Washington’s Public Records Act, there is a compelling public interest in knowing which officers attended the rally—particularly given the law enforcement community’s role in protecting constitutional norms and the public trust.
Neil Fox, one of Sueoka’s attorneys, confirmed in an email that they are reviewing the petition and preparing a response.
Officers Say Public Disclosure Unfair Without Misconduct
The petition to the U.S. Supreme Court contends that disclosing the officers’ identities would serve no legitimate public interest, as the majority were either cleared or found not to have committed misconduct.
It adds that labeling the rally attendees, even indirectly, as participants in an “insurrection” unfairly conflates lawful protest with criminal behavior.
“These public servants are being vilified without the commission of any misconduct whatsoever,” the petition states.
The officers’ lawyers emphasized that the risk of retaliation or reputational harm could have a “chilling effect” on future political participation by public employees—especially those who hold controversial views or attend polarizing events.
Public’s Right to Know vs. Individual Rights
The case raises thorny constitutional and legal questions about the balance between public transparency and individual privacy rights, particularly for government employees.
On one hand, advocates for open records argue that public officials, including police officers, must be accountable to the people and that participation in such a politically charged event warrants scrutiny.
On the other, privacy advocates and civil liberties defenders warn that forced exposure in a high-profile case can dissuade political participation and set a troubling precedent where public pressure or outrage dictates disclosure.
What Happens Next?
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide soon whether it will hear the case or issue a stay to temporarily block the release of the officers’ names while the legal battle plays out.
If the court declines the petition or rules against the officers, the names could be publicly released in the near future as part of the ongoing records request litigation.
This decision may have lasting implications for how government employees’ off-duty conduct is evaluated, especially in the context of political events and public records laws.
Seattle Officers Seek Seattle Officers Seek
You must Register or Login to post a comment.