## Facts

- A class of approximately 25,000 abused and neglected children in Illinois DCFS custody sued DCFS officials, alleging systemic failures and seeking relief under the Fourteenth Amendment, federal child-welfare statutes, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- After extensive discovery, the parties entered a comprehensive consent decree approved by the district court in December 1991, requiring broad reforms with staggered deadlines and oversight by a court-appointed monitor.
- By 1993–1994, all sides agreed DCFS was not meeting decree obligations and had missed key deadlines.
- To facilitate candid discussions about compliance, the district judge, plaintiffs, and DCFS added in-chambers conferences to supplement ongoing open-court status hearings, citing heated public sessions and concern that media attention impeded concessions and problem-solving.
- Patrick T. Murphy, the Cook County Public Guardian (also acting as an individual citizen), moved to intervene and sought an order requiring future implementation-related proceedings to be held in open court, asserting a constitutional right of public and press access.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in denying Murphy’s motion to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or permissively under Rule 24(b).
2. Whether the Constitution required public access to in-chambers conferences held to discuss implementation of the consent decree.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of intervention.
- The court held Murphy did not meet Rule 24(a)’s requirements for intervention of right because the litigation’s disposition did not practically impair his ability to protect his interests, including through independent litigation on behalf of children he represented.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), given the case’s complexity and the risk that an additional party would increase duplication, delay, and administrative burdens.
- The Seventh Circuit rejected Murphy’s claim of a constitutional right of access to the in-chambers implementation conferences.
- Applying the “experience and logic” approach, the court concluded there was no tradition of public access to such remedial management conferences and that confidentiality could improve candor and effectiveness in achieving compliance, while public access could chill negotiations.
- The court emphasized that the district judge continued to conduct open-court status hearings and issue public orders, and that the in-chambers conferences supplemented rather than replaced public proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) requires a protectable interest that may be practically impaired by the litigation’s disposition and is not adequately protected by existing parties.
- Permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) is discretionary, and a court may deny it to avoid undue delay, complication, or duplicative participation in complex institutional-reform litigation.
- The First Amendment right of access is strongest for adjudicatory proceedings with a tradition of openness; it does not automatically extend to in-chambers conferences focused on managing compliance with a consent decree.
- Under the “experience and logic” analysis, courts may conduct non-public remedial or settlement-like conferences when confidentiality reasonably supports effective judicial supervision, particularly where public hearings and on-the-record orders remain available.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s refusal to add a public guardian as a party in ongoing consent-decree supervision and held that in-chambers compliance conferences could be closed to the public without violating constitutional access rights, where they functioned as remedial management tools alongside continued public hearings and orders.


B.H. v. McDonald, 49 F.3d 294 (7th Cir. 1995)