The Supreme Court has made clear that no procedural rule can be permitted to override a Constitutional right. State v. Sargent, 968 N.W.2d 32,41-42 (Minn. 2021) (“the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure do not control the analysis when considering a violation of the Minnesota Constitution.”), cf. State v. LeDoux, 770 N.W.2d 504, 512 (Minn. 2009) (“the rules cannot diminish Constitutional protection.”). The courts have been unanimous, in numerous decisions that are binding upon this Court, that there is a public right of access to judicial records. Most courts have focused on the right as subsidiary of the First Amendment. Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Sabertooth Motor Grp., LLC, No. 13-146 (JRT/JSM), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113668, at *8 (D. Minn. Aug. 1, 2016), citing Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 265 (4th Cir. 2014), Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 n. 17 (1980), Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), and Media Gen. Operations, Inc. v. Buchanan, 417 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir.2005). However, the Minnesota Supreme Court and this Court have each recognized that it is also a creature of the common law of this state. Star Tribune, 659 N.W.2d 287, 295 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003), citing Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d 197, 202-03 (Minn. 1986) (for the proposition that there is both a common-law and First Amendment right to access civil court records).