Baby Doe v. Joshua Mast

── Baby Doe v. Joshua Mast ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 24-1900 Doc: 53 Filed: 04/22/2026 Pg: 1 of 28 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1900 BABY DOE, citizen of Afghanistan currently residing in North Carolina, by and through Next Friends, John and Jane Doe; JOHN DOE, citizen of Afghanistan and legal guardian of Baby Doe; JANE DOE, citizen of Afghanistan and legal guardian of Baby Doe, Plaintiffs – Appellees, v. JOSHUA MAST; STEPHANIE MAST; RICHARD MAST, Defendants – Appellants, and KIMBERLEY MOTLEY; AHMAD OSMANI; UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO, Nominal Defendant; UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH, Nominal Defendant, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00049-RSB-JCH) Argued: September 10, 2025 Decided: April 22, 2026 Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1900 Doc: 53 Filed: 04/22/2026 Pg: 2 of 28 Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Richardson wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Judge Diaz joined. Judge King wrote a dissenting opinion. ARGUED: John S. Moran, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Kevin S. Elliker, HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: David Eliezer Yerushalmi, AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Maya M. Eckstein, Lewis F. Powell III, HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Brittany M.J. Record, Ehson Kashfipour, Washington, D.C., Blair Connelly, Zachary Rowen, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1900 Doc: 53 Filed: 04/22/2026 Pg: 3 of 28 RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge: To protect Plaintiffs and their family members living in Afghanistan, the district court issued a protective order that prohibited Defendants and their lawyers from “disclosing any information that directly or indirectly identifies Plaintiffs or their family members to any person . . . unless that person first executes a non-disclosure agreement.” J.A. 51–52. Plaintiffs contend that disclosing their identities—or the details surrounding their evacuation from Afghanistan—would endanger both them and their family members in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Defendants argue that the protective order is an unconstitutional prior restraint on their speech because it limits their ability to communicate information that they obtained prior to—and independent of—discovery. Although the order constitutes a content-based prior restraint, it fits into one of the narrow exceptions in which prior restraints can be permissible, subject to strict scrutiny. And the order satisfies strict scrutiny: It is narrowly tailored to safeguard the government’s compelling interest in ensuring our Nation’s security, which often depends on ensuring the safety of foreign nationals who ally themselves with United States military and diplomatic efforts abroad. Indeed, if such foreign nationals cannot rely on the United States’ assurances of their protection, our Nation’s ability to cultivate essential human assets abroad would be seriously undermined. In this case, the narrow protective order is the least res