In 2014, a handcuffed 22-year-old man named Victor White III was shot to death in the back seat of an Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Office cruiser.

White’s family always questioned the official account that it was a suicide. When they filed a civil rights lawsuit, Sheriff Louis Ackal settled with a check. But a federal judge’s order has prevented the public from knowing how much was paid out.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from a lawyer for The Advocate and KATC-TV, who said the public has a vital interest in the outcome of the case, and a lawyer for White’s family, who said the privacy rights of White's child outweigh the public’s right to know how public money was spent.

Two of the three judges repeatedly expressed skepticism that Ackal’s taxpayer-funded settlement should be kept secret. But one wondered aloud how he could limit a ruling so that it wouldn’t disturb the confidentiality of other agreements.

The case has drawn the attention of 32 news organizations from around the country, who warned in a friend-of-the-court brief that a ruling against the Louisiana outlets could strike at the heart of the public’s right to know what happens in public courtrooms.

+8 $3 million in new payouts as Iberia Parish Sheriff's Office settles more abuse suits Derrick Sellers gets Botox injections in his scalp and wears specially tinted glasses to dull the insufferable glare of a normal day.

White’s March 2, 2014, death was one of the most controversial incidents in the recent history of a Sheriff’s Office that has been wracked by complaints of excessive force and civil rights abuses under Ackal.

Deputies said that after White was arrested on drug counts and searched, he still managed to produce a gun and kill himself inside a Sheriff’s Office car. The mother of White’s child filed a lawsuit in 2015, ultimately claiming that it was deputies who shot White.

That allegation was never tested at a trial, however. In March 2018, Ackal reached an agreement with the family to settle the case. The settlement was spelled out in open court, but a federal magistrate judge sealed the record of the hearing.

The Advocate filed a public records request with the Louisiana Sheriffs Association, seeking settlement documents through the group's insurance pool, of which Ackal's office was a member when White was killed. The pool later booted Ackal from the program, citing an excessive amount it was having to pay in settlements, mostly for excessive force complaints. Since Ackal took office a decade ago, settlements against his agency have totaled $6 million.

The association released a copy of several of those settlement checks. Only one was redacted to hide the amount: the check to White's family.

An attorney for the association said he was bound by the judge’s order sealing the court hearing.

The Advocate and KATC sought Tuesday to have the three-judge panel vacate the magistrate judge’s order.

“Universally, everyone agrees that under Louisiana law, the terms of the settlement, particularly the amount paid, is a public record,” said Scott Sternberg, an attorney representing the news outlets.

Sternberg said the magistrate judge failed to consider state public records law when he sealed the key settlement hearing. Moreover, the public had a right under both common law and the First Amendment to know what happened in open court, Sternberg argued.

But the family’s attorney, Carol Powell Lexing, presented two main arguments against the media outlets’ bid to vacate the sealing order. First, she said, it was directed at the wrong judge.

On the merits of the request, she said the magistrate judge had rightfully balanced the public’s right to know against the child’s right to privacy. She said the child could be harassed if the settlement amount is made public.

But she struggled when Judge Stephen Higginson asked her for a precedent for keeping a court hearing sealed based on similar harassment concerns.

”I don’t have a case,” Lexing said.

“That’s generally a red flag,” Higginson replied.

Meanwhile, Judge James Graves wondered how a judge could retroactively seal a hearing.

“You’re telling me it was conducted in open court, in front of whoever happened to be there that day?” he asked.

Higginson said he thought the 5th Circuit has jurisdiction to vacate the sealing order if it wishes. But he also asked what limiting principle would prevent the panel’s ruling from affecting countless other confidential settlements.

Sternberg said the difference from other cases is that this settlement was read into the record in open court. “The whole purpose of putting it on the record is that the plaintiff and the defendant are bound to the terms,” he said.

The judges did not indicate when they might rule. A third judge, E. Grady Jolly, participated via teleconference and did not ask questions.