Image Credit: Canva
Note from The Tennessee Conservative: Editorial statements in this column are the sole opinion of the author; they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff of this publication.
Submitted by Peter Maher –
Tennessee’s judicial institutions are facing escalating questions about transparency, and one of the most significant fights is now headed toward the U.S. Supreme Court. According to The Tennessee Conservative, the Liberty Justice Center is preparing a Supreme Court petition after the Sixth Circuit ruled that the First Amendment does not guarantee public access to Tennessee’s Judicial Advisory Commission meetings—a ruling that would allow these rulemaking meetings to remain closed.
The case stems from the closure of these meetings in 2018, after they had been publicly accessible for more than 35 years. Court records note the state’s position that the meetings should remain closed “to encourage honest and frank discussions,” while challengers argue that “meetings on matters of public importance should be open to the public” and that government officials cannot remove long‑open meetings from scrutiny merely because transparency is inconvenient.
The Liberty Justice Center has made clear that it intends to ask the Supreme Court to “make that clear once and for all.”
This unfolding fight over judicial openness is not an isolated case—it reflects a broader pattern of diminishing public access within Tennessee’s court‑related bodies, including the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and, most notably, our Access to Justice Commission (ATJC).
When our Access to Justice Commission Limits Access, Something Is Broken
Recently, in response to my inquiry on public participation and transparency, the Administrative Office of the Courts provided a written statement that clarified—and confirmed—the Commission’s restrictive posture. In a February 17, 2026 letter, AOC General Counsel Jay Miller wrote:
“Requirements under Tennessee’s public meetings law… do not apply to the ATJC because neither it nor its advisory committees are governing bodies.”
“Even though the ATJC meetings are not open to the public, if you would like to provide comment… you can submit it in writing.”
Tennesseans are technically permitted to “provide comment” to the Access to Justice Commission, but the Administrative Office of the Courts offers no publicly posted public‑comment policy, no clear procedural guidance, and no straightforward contact pathway for doing so on any of its public‑facing websites. Despite the importance of public participation, our AOC has not yet adopted any formal public‑comment rules for the Access to Justice Commission, and no such policies are published or accessible online
These sentences tell Tennesseans everything they need to know: the body charged with expanding access to justice conducts its work in meetings that are closed, unrecorded, unpublished, and inaccessible.
No agendas.
No minutes.
No recordings.
No public comment policy.
No structured public input of any kind.
And as Mr. Miller’s letter makes unmistakably clear, this practice is a choice, not a legal necessity.
It Shouldn’t Require Months of Follow‑Ups to Engage any Public Commission
Over months of correspondence—some acknowledged only after repeated requests—I respectfully attempted to gain access to:
- Agendas
- Meeting materials
- Subcommittee schedules
- Public comment procedures
- Clarification on public participation
Routine, standard items for any public‑serving body.
The responses revealed a culture of institutional gatekeeping that mirrors the broader judicial‑branch transparency disputes now surfacing in Tennessee. The fact that Tennesseans must work this hard to engage with a commission created to help them is itself evidence of a system misaligned with its mission.
The Justice Gap and the Information Gap Are Intertwined
Tennesseans who earn too much to qualify for civil legal aid—but far too little to afford costly representation for matters of public concern—are already squeezed out of our justice system and public interest law.
The Access to Justice Commission should be exploring solutions to this growing middle‑class justice gap. Instead, it has created an information gap that prevents Tennesseans from even understanding, much less influencing, that work.
When transparency is absent, accountability cannot follow.
Other Tennessee Bodies Choose Transparency. Why Doesn’t This One?
Many state commissions—judicial and non‑judicial—voluntarily publish agendas, minutes, and detailed materials, even when not legally required. Several livestream meetings. Several provide standing public comment opportunities. Our ATJC does none of this.
At a moment when Tennessee’s judiciary faces a Supreme Court petition over closed rulemaking meetings—a petition driven by concerns about secrecy, public exclusion, and the erosion of civic oversight—the Access to Justice Commission should be leading by example, not the face of the problem.
A Commission Committed to Access Must Model Access
The ATJC could easily adopt simple, meaningful practices:
- Publish agendas, minutes, and materials online
- Record and archive meetings
- Adopt a public comment policy
- Make advisory committee work visible
- Provide remote access options for rural Tennesseans
- Provide on our AOC public facing website clear information, including ATJC sub-committee activities and priorities.
These reforms have no fiscal burden. But their impact on public trust would be measurable.
Tennesseans Expect Better
Access to justice begins with access to information. Tennesseans should not have to file lawsuits, petition our Supreme Court, or send dozens of follow‑up emails simply to see how decisions affecting our justice system are made.
If Tennessee’s Access to Justice Commission is to live up to its name, it must embrace transparency—not avoid it.
