Nevada Supreme Court case tests limits on court transparency

 

Nevada Supreme Court case tests limits on court transparency
Capitol
Webp 9oo1ktzyk7xanjqxexc7oj94ok0j
Danielle Bennett Social Work Practicum Student | ACLU of Nevada Website

Holland & Hart and the ACLU of Nevada have collaborated on an amicus brief submitted to the Nevada Supreme Court. The case concerns the right of Nevadans to access court proceedings, a matter brought into focus by actions taken by the Murdoch family.

The Murdochs are involved in a high-profile dispute over their family fortune. Their legal team has been instrumental in advocating for new statutes, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669.256, which some interpret as allowing automatic sealing of trust-related documents and closed hearings. This development has raised concerns about transparency since neither media nor public can access these proceedings.

In response, seven national news organizations, including The New York Times and CNN, have petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn this sealing order on constitutional grounds.

The ACLU of Nevada, with pro bono assistance from Holland & Hart’s appellate team, filed an amicus brief supporting this petition. Christopher Peterson, Legal Director at ACLU of Nevada, emphasized the importance of public access to courtrooms: “Over the last two weeks, thousands of Nevadans voted in judicial elections across our state... The First Amendment guarantees that everyone has the right to see what is going on in our courtrooms."

The ACLU's involvement underscores its commitment to maintaining transparency within Nevada's judicial system. It references past efforts like Falconi v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court that affirmed civil proceedings should be public unless privacy concerns warrant otherwise.

The organization also argues against legislative overreach into judicial matters—a potential violation of constitutional separation of powers—highlighting how recent statutes could undermine judiciary independence.

As briefing continues through mid-December, it remains uncertain if oral arguments will be heard by the court.

For further insights into this case's implications both locally and nationally, Holland & Hart appellate partner Abe Smith is available for commentary through Debbie Campbell at 720-272-8954.

Related