Assembly advances bill setting new test for closing family‑court proceedings after Nevada Supreme Court ruling

Senate Bill 432, presented by Sen. Melanie Scheibel (D‑Dist. 9), would establish a statutory balancing test for when family‑court proceedings and records may be closed or sealed. Sponsors said the bill is a direct response to the Nevada Supreme Court’s Falcone decision, which struck down the prior statutory framework and left courts without a clear process for balancing openness against privacy in family cases.

Under the bill as presented, family‑court proceedings—typically divorce, child custody and parentage matters—would be presumed open. A party, counsel or the court could move to close part or all of a proceeding, but the court would have to find that a compelling interest (for example to protect a child’s safety, prevent undue embarrassment or avoid violation of privacy or applicable law such as HIPAA) would be substantially harmed unless the proceeding or record were closed. The bill instructs courts to consider the presumption of openness, the best interest of a child, the likelihood of legal violations, and whether narrower alternatives (such as sealing records but permitting public attendance) would suffice. It requires written findings and narrowly tailored orders when closure is granted.

The bill also creates a process for unsealing records on a showing of good cause and, as a backstop, makes publishing sealed family‑court materials a category D felony in limited circumstances when someone willfully obtains and publicly distributes private records in violation of a sealing order.

Opposition: Several media, civil‑liberties and public‑interest witnesses testified in opposition or warned the committee to narrow the bill. Tia Smith (ACLU of Nevada) said the bill risks limiting public access and reducing court accountability and asked for narrower tailoring. Alex Falcone (Nevada Press Association) strongly opposed the bill’s breadth, arguing it was not limited to children or to sensitive medical records and that it could chill reporting; he urged the committee to honor the Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling. Stephanie Phillips (Veterans in Politics) said restricting recordings and outside advocates in hearings would hurt transparency and accountability. Cody Gamble and other public commenters argued the bill resembled older Nevada secrecy practices dating to the state’s early divorce statutes.

Sponsor response and committee action: Sen. Scheibel said the bill is intended to restore a constitutionally sound process after Falcone and to give judges a clear, narrowly tailored framework. She pointed to the amendment lawmakers were considering to allow partial closures of specific hearings and to require courts to consider sealing records before closing live proceedings. In a later work session the committee approved the amended bill; the sponsor and several members acknowledged remaining concerns and said they would continue discussions on guardrails and drafting. The committee moved the bill as amended to do pass.

Why this matters: Family‑court proceedings often involve minors and sensitive information; the bill attempts to balance the public’s First Amendment interest in open courts and the privacy and safety interests of litigants and children. Opponents warned that broad sealing authority without careful limits could undermine transparency and press oversight.

What happens next: SB 432 was advanced from committee in amended form. The sponsor and opponents indicated they will continue to negotiate language and guardrails as the bill moves toward floor consideration.