That "general rule" appears to come from a 1977 district court decision, which in turn relied on a Kentucky Court of Appeals decision. See Schwartz, 435 F. Supp. at 1203 (citing Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co. v. Curtis, 335 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Ky. 1959)). But that Kentucky case never held that the state legislature—much less Congress—is subject to the common law right of access.

This section notes that the English common-law rule has received some recognition in this country but it is not generally enforced here. The only case cited as supporting the common-law rule is Courier Journal Louisville Times Company v. Curtis, Ky., 335 S.W.2d 934. The general rule in this country is stated as follows: "Good public policy is said to require liberality in the right to examine public records. Thus, where there is no contrary statute or countervailing public policy, the right to inspect public records must be freely allowed.

State v. O'Connell (1967) N. Dakota, 151 N.W.2d 758, and Garfield v. Palmieri (1961) D.C.N.Y., 193 F. Supp. 137, are said by some counsel to be contrary to New York Post Corporation, but I do not so read those cases, nor, if they so hold, do I agree with them. Courier Journal Louisville Times Co. v. Curtis (1960) Ky., 335 S.W.2d 934, held that a newspaper did not have standing to demand a reporter's transcript of an in camera hearing in a murder case, and I agree with that decision, assuming the propriety of the in camera proceeding. However, there is no in camera hearing, proper or improper, involved in this case.

United States v. Mitchell, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 551 F.2d 1252, 1257 (1976). The general rule is that all three branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, are subject to the common law right. Courier-Journal Louisville Times Co. v. Curtis, 335 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Ky. 1959), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 910, 81 S.Ct. 272, 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960), partially overruled on other grounds, St. Matthews v. Voice of St. Matthews, Inc., 519 S.W.2d 811 (Ky. 1974); 66 Am.Jur.2d Records and Recording Laws § 15 (1973). Defendant Rodino has set forth no persuasive reason why Congress should be exempted from the common law rule.

Our cases declare that representatives of the news media enjoy the same right of access to public information as is available to any other member of the public, but that this right does not exceed the right of any other member of the public. Johnson v. Simpson, supra at 647; Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co. v. Curtis, Ky., 335 S.W.2d 934 (1959), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 910, 81 S.Ct. 272, 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960), Secondary holding overruled, City of St. Matthews v. Voice of St. Matthews, Inc., Ky., 519 S.W.2d 811, 815 (1974). These same cases also recognize that the ability of news organizations to disseminate the information to a much larger segment of the interested public requires the court to accommodate the media even when only limited attendance by the public is appropriate.

Moore v. Board of Freeholders of Mercer County, 76 N.J.Super. 396, 184 A.2d 748, 753-754 (1962); Pyramid Life Insurance Company v. Masonic Hospital Association, 191 F.Supp. 51 (W.D.Okl. 1961); Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company v. State, 282 Minn. 86, 163 N.W.2d 46 (1968); 66 Am.Jur.2d, Records and Recording Laws, § 15. Some authorities call the right a "qualified" right. Courier-Journal Louisville Times Company v. Curtis, 335 S.W.2d 934 (Ky. 1960). It is generally held that judicial records are subject to inspection after completion of the proceedings, but this rule too is subject to the discretionary power of the court to impound and deny inspection when justice so requires. State ex rel. Williston Herald, Inc. v. O'Connell, 151 N.W.2d 758, 763 (N.D. 1967); Sanford v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 318 Mass. 156, 61 N.E.2d 5 (1945); Re Caswell, supra. Thus, at common law, there is no absolute right of a member of the public to inspect judicial records and this would remain true barring some constitutional or statutory grant.

Accord, RepublicanParty of Arkansas v. State (Ark.) 400 S.W.2d 660, 662; Courier-Journal Louisville Times Co. v. Curtis (Ky.) 335 S.W.2d 934, 937.)

The right to inspect a public record at common law is a broad one but it is not unlimited; it is not absolute under all circumstances. Denial of inspection and copying for a purpose detrimental to the public interest or in conflict with the public policy expressed in the whole statute, of which the grant of inspection section was just a part, is proper. See Ferry v. Williams, 41 N.J.L. 332 ( Sup. Ct. 1879); VanAllen v. McCleary, 27 Misc.2 d 81, 211 N.Y.S.2d 501, 512 ( Sup. Ct. Spec. Term 1961); Courier-Journal LouisvilleTimes Co. v. Curtis, 335 S.W.2d 934, 936-937 ( Ky. Ct.App. 1959); 76 C.J.S., Records, §§ 35a and b (1952). Generally speaking, an inspection provision in a statutory enactment couched in the broad terms appearing in the present instance ought to be regarded as carrying the same incidents as pertained at common law. Cf. Casey v. MacPhail, 2 N.J. Super. 619 ( LawDiv. 1949); Clay v. Ballard, 87 Va. 787, 13 S.E. 262 ( Sup. Ct. App. 1891).

Library of Congress, Catalog of Copyright Entries, Vol. 33 For the Year 1936, p. 361 (U.S. Gov't Printing Office, Washington: 1940) (emphasis added). As it turns out, two decades later, in Courier-Journal & Louisville Times v. Curtis, our highest court would misinterpret Martin. 335 S.W.2d 934 (Ky. 1959), overruled by City of St. Matthews v. Voice of St. Matthews, Inc., 519 S.W.2d 811 (Ky. 1974). However, misinterpretation was a blessing in disguise.

We do not believe that the trial judge could condition admission on certain rules however reasonable, because to so allow, would allow future conditions not so reasonable. In Courier-journal and Louisville Times Co. v. Curtis, Ky., 335 S.W.2d 394, we held that newspapers have the same right of access to public information as does any other member of the public but that right did not exceed the right of any other member of the public. We adhere to that doctrine.