California and San Francisco Settle Lawsuit Over Law That Banned Sharing Sealed Arrest Records, But the Law Stays on the Books

What Happened

California and the city of San Francisco have agreed to settle a lawsuit over a state law that made it a civil offense — up to $1,500 per violation — to share any information "relating to" a sealed arrest report, even if the person sharing it obtained the information legally.

The settlement was entered by the court in mid-June 2026, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The agreement means journalist Jack Poulson and Substack will not face monetary penalties for reporting on a sealed arrest record involving Maury Blackman, a tech CEO.

The Law Itself

The statute at issue is California Penal Code § 851.92(c). On its face, it prohibits not just government employees from disclosing sealed arrest records. It bars anyone from publishing a sealed arrest report or sharing information "relating to" it.

Under the plain text of the law, a victim, a witness, or a journalist who independently and legally obtained the information could face civil penalties simply for describing what they know.

The Supreme Court has addressed this territory before. Once information is lawfully obtained by a private party, the government's interest in keeping it quiet does not automatically override First Amendment protections. FIRE cited that precedent in its November 2024 lawsuit.

How This Started

In fall 2024, the San Francisco City Attorney's Office sent three letters to Poulson and Substack demanding removal of reporting that documented Blackman's arrest. When those removal efforts stalled, Blackman filed his own separate lawsuit against Poulson and Substack. A case he is currently appealing. FIRE filed a friend-of-the-court brief in that separate action.

After FIRE and the First Amendment Coalition filed their own lawsuit in November 2024 on behalf of FAC's Director of Advocacy Ginny LaRoe and legal commentator Eugene Volokh, both of whom wanted to write about the same report and the related litigation, California's attorney general and San Francisco's city attorney agreed not to enforce the law against those clients while the case was pending.

The settlement, confirmed last week, extends that protection: Poulson and Substack will not face civil penalties under § 851.92(c).

The Strongest Concern Going the Other Way

Sealing an arrest record exists precisely to protect people who were arrested but never charged, or whose charges were dismissed. These individuals carry no criminal conviction but could have their arrest follow them indefinitely if publicly circulated. The argument for § 851.92(c) is that without some enforcement mechanism against third parties, sealing an arrest means very little. The government stops publishing it, but anyone who obtained it before the seal can keep spreading it, effectively making the seal meaningless.

Arrest records are not convictions. Someone arrested in error has a genuine interest in not having that record circulate forever.

The legal problem is that California's chosen remedy is overbroad. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that restricting the speech of private parties who lawfully obtained information, rather than restricting the government employees who hand it out, runs into serious First Amendment problems. California's own officials apparently agreed. According to FIRE, neither the state attorney general nor the San Francisco city attorney even attempted to defend the statute in court.

What Stays Unresolved

The settlement protects the specific parties in this case. It does not strike the law down.

California Penal Code § 851.92(c) remains valid California law as of June 23, 2026. Any future plaintiff, including a private party like Blackman who is already in separate litigation, could attempt to use it. The $1,500-per-violation penalty still exists on paper.

FAC Director David Loy said in a statement that "while the defendants in this case properly declined to defend it, it should be taken off the books to prevent others from weaponizing it in the future."

Volokh, who was a named plaintiff, said: "Government documents released to members of the public should be able to stay public."

What Happens Next

FIRE and FAC are now calling on the California legislature to formally repeal the statute. Whether that gains traction in Sacramento is genuinely uncertain. The legislature has not announced any repeal effort as of today, and no committee hearing has been scheduled, according to the sources available.

Meanwhile, Blackman's separate lawsuit against Poulson and Substack continues in the courts. The outcome of that appeal, not this settlement, will determine whether a private party can use civil litigation to achieve what state officials decided not to defend.