Have you ever wondered what really goes on inside a family courtroom? For a long time in Nevada, most people couldn’t find out. Those hearings were locked tight, shielded from public view almost by default. Things changed dramatically when the state’s highest court decided that sunshine, not secrecy, should be the rule.
The decision sent ripples through Nevada’s legal community and sparked fierce debate about privacy, accountability, and what transparency really means in a democracy where judges are elected by the people. Let’s be honest, it’s a complicated topic that touches on deeply personal lives while also confronting fundamental questions about government openness.
The Big Ruling: Family Court Doors Swing Open
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday, Feb. 15, 2024, that the public has a constitutional right to access Family Court proceedings. The order deemed that a rule change that automatically closed some Family Court hearings violated the public’s First Amendment right to access court hearings. This wasn’t just a minor tweak to procedure. The court found that family law proceedings are presumptively open to the public and the press and ruled it is unconstitutional to enact rules that close all proceedings by default rather than on a case-by-case basis.
For decades, Nevada treated family court as essentially private. In 2024, in Falconi v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., the Nevada Supreme Court decided, on a 4 to 3 vote, that the statute was unconstitutional because all court hearings are presumptively open and the statute did not permit the trial court to exercise its discretion to decide whether closure was warranted. That split vote tells you this wasn’t an easy call.
The justices recognized that opening these doors would be uncomfortable for many people going through divorce or custody battles. Still, they emphasized that openness serves a larger purpose.
Why the First Amendment Matters in Your Local Courtroom
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the public has a constitutional right to access Family Court proceedings. The order deemed that a rule change that automatically closed some Family Court hearings violated the public’s First Amendment right to access court hearings. Here’s the thing: the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly spell out a right to watch trials. Yet courts have long recognized that open proceedings are baked into our system of justice.
The ACLU of Nevada has argued that the public has a right to access courts under the First Amendment. First Amendment access to the courts is critical to government transparency everywhere in the United States, and it has particular importance in Nevada where judges are elected by the public to the bench. When you’re asked to vote for judges, shouldn’t you be able to see how they perform on the bench?
This principle extends beyond criminal trials into civil matters. The court emphasized the importance of public access to court proceedings, including family court proceedings, which historically have been open to the public. The reasoning is straightforward: if government happens behind closed doors, accountability vanishes.
The Case That Started It All
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada first challenged a District Court rule enacted in June 2022 on behalf of Alexander Falconi, who created the Our Nevada Judges news website. Falconi’s project aimed to track judicial performance and educate people about the court system. When Clark County adopted rules making it even easier to close family court hearings without explanation, he fought back.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal had also filed a petition challenging rules, arguing before the high court in March that transparency should be upheld within the Family Court system. The Family Court rules allowed child custody hearings to be closed, without requiring that a judge provide a reason why, and allowed for Family Court proceedings to be closed at the request of one of the involved parties.
Media organizations and open-government advocates argued these automatic closures went too far. They pointed out that without public scrutiny, how could anyone know whether justice was being served fairly?
Judges Must Now Justify Closing Hearings
“It should be noted that the closure of various family law proceedings can and will be warranted in various instances,” Thursday’s ruling stated. “What we recognize today is the critical importance of the public’s access to the courts and the role that thoughtful, reasoned judicial decision-making plays in identifying the compelling interests at stake and determining: 1) if and when to order closure in any proceedings, be it family, civil, or criminal in nature; and 2) to what extent such closure should apply.”
This is the crucial shift. The court rejected the automatic closure of such proceedings and emphasized the necessity of case-by-case judicial discretion in deciding whether to close proceedings. Judges can still protect privacy, but they have to explain why on the record. A blanket rule that shuts the door to everyone no longer passes constitutional muster.
Now, under the Nevada family court privacy law, closure is discretionary and requires a compelling interest, written findings, and narrow tailoring. Honestly, that’s a much higher bar than existed before.
What “Presumptively Open” Actually Means
You might hear lawyers and judges toss around the phrase “presumptively open.” What does that mean in practice? Open by default: Family-law proceedings start open. A judge may close all or part of a hearing only when closure is necessary to protect a compelling interest.
Think of it like this: the starting point is transparency. If someone wants to close the courtroom, they need to prove it’s absolutely necessary. What judges must weigh: The presumption of openness; each child’s best interests; risks from disclosing health/education records (HIPAA/FERPA); and whether openness could cause harassment, undue embarrassment, or harm. Judges must make written findings and use the least restrictive option.
The court recognized that some information is genuinely sensitive. Medical records, children’s educational files, and details that might endanger someone’s safety can still be protected. The difference is judges must actively decide, rather than rubber-stamping closure requests.
Accountability in a System Where Judges Face Voters
First Amendment access to the courts is critical to government transparency everywhere in the United States, and it has particular importance in Nevada where judges are elected by the public to the bench. This point keeps coming up, and for good reason. Nevada isn’t like the federal system where judges get lifetime appointments. Here, judges run for office.
Without transparency, the public cannot hold courts accountable for misconduct, and Nevadans have no mechanism to ensure family court proceedings are fair or honest. How can you make an informed choice at the ballot box if you have no idea what a judge does all day? Family court handles an enormous volume of cases involving vulnerable people, often without lawyers to represent them.
Closing court proceedings without cause increases the likelihood that the most vulnerable members of our community are hidden away by the individuals and systems that have victimized them. That’s a sobering thought. Sunlight, as they say, is the best disinfectant.
The Ongoing Tug-of-War Between Privacy and Transparency
“We acknowledge that there is an interest in protecting litigants’ privacy rights in family law proceedings, as those proceedings apply wholly to their private lives,” four Supreme Court justices wrote in the ruling. “However, a litigant’s privacy interests do not automatically overcome the press’s and the public’s right to access court proceedings.”
The court didn’t dismiss privacy concerns. It just refused to let them automatically win. A bill being considered by the Nevada Legislature aims to close family court hearings to increase privacy, but opponents say it is unnecessary legislation that could hinder transparency of elected officials and harm people who can’t afford an attorney. Senate Bill 432, sponsored by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, sets guidance for family courts on the sealing and opening of records and authorizes a judge to exercise their discretion on closing a hearing if it serves a “compelling interest.”
Debates continue in the Nevada legislature about how to balance these interests. Some litigants have described open hearings as devastating invasions of privacy, particularly when children are involved. Others argue that judges already have tools to protect truly sensitive information without reverting to blanket secrecy.
What This Means Across Different Types of Cases
What we recognize today is the critical importance of the public’s access to the courts and the role that thoughtful, reasoned judicial decision-making plays in identifying the compelling interests at stake and determining: 1) if and when to order closure in any proceedings, be it family, civil, or criminal in nature; and 2) to what extent such closure should apply.
Though the case focused on family court, the reasoning extends further. The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada held that the public has a constitutional right to access court proceedings. The local rules and the statute, NRS 125.080, requiring the district court to close proceedings, bypassed the exercise of judicial discretion and were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. Thus, the court held that these local rules and NRS 125.080 were unconstitutional to the extent they permitted closed family court proceedings without exercising judicial discretion.
Civil cases, criminal matters, even probate proceedings all fall under similar principles. The Nevada Supreme Court’s stance strengthens public access rights wherever courtroom doors might swing shut without proper justification.
The Public Records Connection
Court access isn’t just about watching hearings. It also involves getting documents and records. Nevada has a public records law that generally requires government files to be accessible unless a specific exemption applies. If a segment is closed, the transcript or recording of that portion is confidential and cannot be distributed beyond the parties, but the rest remains available.
Falconi argues that blanket sealing of court files hinders proper oversight of the judiciary. “Court practices continue to breed distrust in the judiciary by operating behind an unnecessary veil of secrecy,” Falconi said. Observers have noted that sealing entire case files automatically, without judicial review, conflicts with the transparency principles the Supreme Court affirmed.
This isn’t an abstract legal point. When court records disappear behind walls of secrecy, stories that matter never get told, misconduct goes unnoticed, and patterns of unfairness remain invisible.
Still Work to Do: Challenges Remain
The Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t instantly solve everything. Falconi said he still has to battle for access to courtrooms despite the ruling. Some judges have resisted allowing cameras or have denied media access with reasoning that transparency advocates call insufficient.
Falconi argues that blanket sealing of court files hinders proper oversight of the judiciary. “Court practices continue to breed distrust in the judiciary by operating behind an unnecessary veil of secrecy,” Falconi said. Legal battles continue over high-profile cases where courts have sealed records and closed proceedings, sometimes without clear public explanations.
The clash between longstanding court culture and new transparency requirements will take time to resolve. Some in Nevada’s legal community remain skeptical that openness improves justice, while others believe it’s the only way to ensure fairness. The debate is very much alive in legislative halls and courtrooms across the state.
What does all this mean for you? If you’re involved in a family court case, you should know that hearings will generally be open unless your judge finds a specific, compelling reason to close all or part of the proceeding. If you’re a Nevada voter, you now have more ability to see how the judges you elect actually handle cases. The Supreme Court’s 2024 transparency ruling fundamentally changed the relationship between courtrooms and the communities they serve. Whether you see that as progress or intrusion probably depends on which side of the courtroom door you’re standing on. What’s your take on balancing privacy against the public’s right to watch justice in action?
